CLEANSKY · The Panel shares the view expressed in the stakeholders’ consultation in 2012 that the form of the PPP with the JU as an instrument allow for multiannual continuity

Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx i

CLEANSKY

2nd

INTERIM EVALUATION

PANEL REPORT

Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx ii

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................. iv

Signatures ..........................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................2

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................6 1.1 Background and Implementation of the Clean Sky JU ..........................................6

1.2 Objectives and scope of the Second Interim Evaluation........................................7 1.3 Methodology of the Second Interim Evaluation....................................................7

2 Clean Sky - Overall Progress and Effectiveness..........................................................9 2.1 Progress towards environmental targets ...............................................................9

2.2 Progress towards definitions and development of demonstrators ..........................9 2.3 Coordination with FP7, SESAR and National Programmes ................................ 10

2.4 Effectiveness in promoting participation ............................................................ 10 2.5 Effectiveness of ITD and TE strategies .............................................................. 11

2.6 Clean Sky response to changing industrial strategies and research needs ............ 11 2.7 Clean Sky response to previous evaluations ....................................................... 12

2.8 Complementarity with other activities in Horizon 2020 ...................................... 13 2.9 Concluding Statements ...................................................................................... 13

3 Clean Sky Joint Undertaking - Organisation and Efficiency...................................... 14 3.1 Appropriateness of the CS legal framework and governance .............................. 14

3.2 Appropriateness of the JU internal rules and funding ......................................... 15 3.2.1 JU internal rules............................................................................................... 15

3.2.2 Efficiency of funding and budget ..................................................................... 16 3.3 Efficiency of the JU Executive Team organisation and procedures ..................... 17

3.3.1. Efficiency of the JU Executive Team .............................................................. 17 3.3.2. Efficiency of the JU organisational and control procedures ............................. 18

3.4 Efficiency of ITD organisations and procedures ................................................. 18 3.5 Efficiency of communication ............................................................................. 19

3.5.1. Internal communication .................................................................................. 19 3.5.2. External communication ................................................................................. 19

3.6 Concluding Statements ...................................................................................... 20 4 Quality ..................................................................................................................... 21

4.1 Quality of activities ............................................................................................ 21 4.2 Members’ and Partners’ quality ......................................................................... 21

4.3 Quality of Calls for Proposals ............................................................................ 21 4.4 Concluding Statements ...................................................................................... 22

5 Clean Sky ITDs and Technology Evaluator - Progress and Effectiveness ................. 23 5.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) .................................................................. 23

5.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) ......................................................................... 30 5.3 Green RotorCraft (GRC) .................................................................................... 40

5.4 Systems for Green Operations (SGO)................................................................. 45 5.5 Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE) .............................................................. 51

5.6 EcoDesign (ED-ITD) ......................................................................................... 57 5.7 Technology Evaluator (TE) ................................................................................ 60

6 Evolution since 1st Evaluation.................................................................................. 65 6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 65

6.2 Management 2010-2013 evolution ..................................................................... 66 6.3 Risks follow up from 1st Interim Assessment ..................................................... 67

Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx iii

6.4 Scientific and technical comparison ................................................................... 68

6.4.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA-ITD) 2010 -2013 evolution ..................... 68 6.4.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA-ITD) 2010 -2013 evolution ............................ 68

6.4.3 Green Rotorcraft (GRC-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution ........................................ 69 6.4.4 Systems for Green Operation (SGO-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution ...................... 70

6.4.5 Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution .................. 71 6.4.6 Eco-Design (ED-ITD) ................................................................................... 74

6.4.7 Technology Evaluator (TE) ............................................................................ 74 7 List of Recommendations (for Clean Sky 1) ............................................................. 76

8 Key Issues and Overall Recommendations for Clean Sky 2 ...................................... 85 8.1 SWOT Analysis ................................................................................................. 85

8.2 Key Issues and Recommendations for CS2 ........................................................ 87 9 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 92

10 Annexes ................................................................................................................... 96 10.1 Composition of the 1st Interim Evaluation Panel ............................................ 96

10.2 Composition of the 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel ........................................... 96 10.3 Short Bio of the 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel Members ................................ 96

10.4 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................ 98 10.5 Interviews and sources of information .......................................................... 101

10.5.1 JU Executive Team participants to interviews............................................... 101 10.5.2 ITD participants to interviews ...................................................................... 101

10.5.3 Interaction with the NSRG and STAB .......................................................... 101 10.5.4 Reference documents used in the 2nd Interim Evaluation ............................. 102

10.6 Procedure comparison among three JUs: Fuel Cell & Hydrogen (FCH),

Innovative Medicines (IMI) and Clean Sky ................................................................ 107

Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx iv

List of Acronyms

ACARE Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe

AEA All Electric Aircraft

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

ATM Air Traffic Management

ATS Air Transport System

CDR Critical Design Review

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

CfP Call for Proposals

CROR Contra Rotating Open Rotor

CS Clean Sky

CSDP CS Development Plan

CSJU Clean Sky Joint Undertaking

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

ED Eco-Design

ExD Executive Director

EDA Eco-Design for Airframe

EDS Eco-Design for Systems

ETP European Technology Platform

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FP6, FP7, … Framework Programme 6, 7, …

GAM Grant Agreement for Members

GAP Grant Agreement for Partners

GB Governing Board

GFS General Forum of Stakeholders

GRA Green Regional Aircraft

GRC Green Rotorcraft

GTF Geared Turbo Fan

IAS Internal Audit Service

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

ITD Integrated Technology Demonstrator

JTI Joint Technology Initiative

JU Joint Undertaking

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx v

LNC Low Noise Configuration

LWC Low Weight Configuration

MAE Management of Aircraft Energy

MTM Management of Trajectory and Mission

NC New Configuration

NSRG National States Representatives Group

OR Open Rotor

ORA Open-Rotor Acoustics

PDR Preliminary Design Review

PO Project Officer

PPP Public Private Partnership

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals

RTD Research and Technological Development

SAGE Sustainable and Green Engines

SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research

SFWA Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft

SGO Systems for Green Operations

SME Small or Medium Sized Enterprise

SRA Strategic Research Agenda

STAB Scientific and Technical Advisory Board

TE Technology Evaluator

TRL Technology Readiness Level

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

WP Work Package

Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 1

Signatures

BERTOLINI Enzo

BROUCKAERT Jean-François

(Rapporteur)

DI NUCCI, Maria Rosaria

HERRERA, Ivonne

QUENTIN, Francois

(Chairman)


Executive Summary

The report presents the results of the 2nd

Interim Evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CSJU) performed between March and September 2013.

In line with Council Regulation 071/2008, the 2nd

Interim Evaluation has assessed the quality and

efficiency of the CSJU and the progress towards the objectives. The evaluation was performed by a Panel of five independent experts (hereinafter referred to as the “Panel”) based on the Terms of

Reference, defined by the Directorate General for Research and Innovation of the European

Commission. Two experts out of five have participated in the 1st Interim Evaluation as well. Part of

the mandate was to further elaborate and adapt specific questions addressing the evaluation criteria:

effectiveness, efficiency and quality to the CSJU and the JTI technical areas (Integrated

Technology Demonstrators – ITDs). Key in the assessment was the evaluation of the technical progress achieved and its contributions towards the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in

Europe (ACARE) goals. The technical progress was made visible to the Panel thanks to visits to

most of the companies involved in the ITDs. The Panel drew recommendations for the remaining

activities under Clean Sky and - based on the lessons learnt - formulated recommendations for future public private partnerships under Horizon 2020 (Clean Sky 2).

The present evaluation is based on a number of documents provided to the Panel by the European Commission and by the CSJU, i.e. general Clean Sky information provided at the Kick-Off

Meeting, Annual Review Reports for all ITD’s and meeting presentations. The Panel built its

assessment on (a) internal documents and published information, (b) direct observations through the technical visits on site, (c), information gathered in interviews with a wide range of Clean Sky

stakeholders e.g. representatives of Members, Partners and ITD leaders, members of CS bodies e.g.

Governing Board, Scientific and Technical Board (STAB), National State Representative Group

(NSRG) as well as representatives of the CSJU Executive Office. The technical visits were essential to deepen the analysis of the technical progress within CS. The Panel recognises the added

value of such technical visits, which turned out to be extremely helpful for the assessment. Due to

time pressure, the GRC and ED ITDs were not covered by a technical visit but their assessment is based on presentations and interviews.

The structure of this report follows largely the one of the 1st Evaluation Report for consistency

reasons. The initial sections deal with the overall assessment of Clean Sky respectively in terms of

overall progress and effectiveness (Section 2), organisation and efficiency (Section 3) and quality (Section 4). The bulk of the report is then devoted to the detailed technical status of each ITD

mainly acquired through the technical visits on the sites where the research activities are actually

performed (Section 5). A separate section describes the evolution since the 1st evaluation (Section

6) followed by recommendations both for Clean Sky (Section 7) and for Clean Sky 2 (Section 8).

Following the evaluation of the CSJU performance, a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats) was performed in order to place the assessment in a broader setting, to review findings and to develop recommendations also for future activities under Clean Sky 2.

The Panel is convinced that the CSJU has successfully demonstrated the viability of the Public-

Private Partnership (PPP) concept for research in aeronautics. Indeed the Panel collected evidence that the CSJU has been effective in delivering on its main objectives and has been able to reinforce

Europe’s role for aeronautic R&D. The Panel found the research undertaken within CSJU of high

quality. Today, a number of demonstrators are already running or have been tested, and in many cases, the preliminary assessments of the environmental benefits confirm the capability of

achieving the overall targets at completion of the programme.


The Panel acknowledges the work of the previous evaluation in 2010 and endorses a number of

statements and recommendations that in spite of the progress made are still fully relevant after the

2nd

Interim Evaluation. In particular,

Setting up the CSJU as an entirely new Public Private Partnership (PPP) organisation has been

a significant success on its own.

The initial ‘top-down’ work plan has been complemented by a detailed ‘bottom-up’ work plan.

The corresponding schedule foresees achieving key demonstrator targets within the Clean Sky timeframe. Furthermore, the CS timing for demonstrators seems well-synchronized with

industrial deployment strategies.

The CSJU has been highly successful in attracting a high level and wide participation from all

EU key industries and a large number of SMEs. CS has led to new collaborations and the

participation of new organisations is thus enhancing European integration.

The CSJU is successfully stimulating developments towards the ACARE environmental

targets.

The first interim evaluation identified many strengths, but also some areas for improvement. The

Panel appreciates that both the Governing Board and the CSJU have been responsive to the recommendations of the first interim review and have made much progress in implementing them.

A major improvement is the substantial technical progress that has been noted, in particular during

the technical visits on site. At the time of the 1st evaluation (2010), it was noted that the gains were

difficult to quantify because the CS programme was still in its infancy.

The main conclusions drawn by the Panel after this 2nd

assessment are further elaborated hereafter.

The Panel shares the view expressed in the stakeholders’ consultation in 2012 that the form of the

PPP with the JU as an instrument allow for multiannual continuity and visibility. This is one of the strengths of Clean Sky in FP7 as it has enabled to avoid the fragmentation typical of smaller short

term projects, and has established the appropriate pan-European structure for meeting the ACARE

goals set in Vision 2020s.

Overall the Panel considers that the Clean Sky governance is efficient in the management of the

programme and delivery of calls and projects and is convinced that the CSJU has created an

effective dialogue between industry and research around a common strategic agenda and has successfully implemented it. However, steps for reducing administrative work, increasing the

organisational efficiency and enhancing internal and external communication are still required.

Notwithstanding that the Executive Office has made significant progress in speeding up processes

and reaching operational efficiency, the Panel recommends that some further adjustments are carried out to improve efficiency. Now that the Clean Sky JU is well established, the balance of

skills between general administration and project management in the Executive Office needs to be

enforced.

Regarding the technical progress, the Panel agrees with the first review Panel that significant

delays may have accumulated in some ITDs because of the CSJU set up time. The Panel agrees that

the slow start of the CSJU can to a great extent be imputed to the lack of preparedness, both

administrative and technical, when starting the Joint Undertaking. It is noted that, since then, some of the ITDs have caught up with the planning whereas others have accumulated delays especially

when the research content was complex. For some demonstrators, those delays exceed two years.

Overall, the Panel believes that the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators portfolio is of high quality. The Panel collected evidence that the JU is perceived as the flagship for Public Private

Partnership supported aeronautic R&D in Europe. Overall the Panel was of the opinion that

alongside considerable strengths and achievements of the CSJU, there were areas that needed some further attention and where opportunities should be taken. There is no doubt about the quality and

the relevance of the technical activities carried out within Clean Sky, but the problems of resource

allocation together with “slipping” schedules may jeopardize this quality is some cases.


A full set of detailed recommendations is listed at the end of this report (see Section 7). According

to the Panel, the most important recommendations are the following:

The Panel assesses the CSJU as an ambitious European initiative with the potential to

become an innovative model of a public-private-partnership. The Panel underlines that the

CSJU strongly contributes to achieving the roadmaps that have been jointly agreed between all stakeholders, considers the multi-annual approach as advantageous and

recommends this to be continued in the future.

The CSJU should seek to maximize the potential of its advisory bodies to gain support for

the remaining calls and other activities at all levels. The Panel considers information exchange between the JU and NSRG very important and recommends that the NSRG

continues to play a crucial role in ensuring coherence of national programmes with Clean

Sky. The Panel recommends that the STAB involvement be preserved and enhanced for example in drafting the future updates of the SRIA. The role of the STAB is considered

very significant, in particular in view of a follow-up of Clean Sky by Clean Sky 2.

The Panel agrees that due to the expected change in aircraft replacement strategy, the

Clean Sky targets could no longer be achieved in the original CS 2016 time frame for some

demonstrators. There is no longer any clear indication about the actual time frame for the aircraft replacement strategy; it raises the question about some contributors’ motivation to

dedicate resources for a long period of time.

Some areas of CS are addressing operations which are highly affected by particular

interests of stakeholder groups (the entry into service of the replacement aircraft for the A320 was initially foreseen for 2025, but due to the introduction of the A320Neo, has now

been postponed to a later date). An early and close interaction with airlines, air navigation

service providers, airports, etc. is recommended to ensure successful deployment. It is recommended to create a “market” advisory group to the CS Governing Board (GB) to

better align JU decisions with the market evolution and trends and to advise the GB about

the inputs the Technology Evaluator (TE) should feed back to the JU.

It is recommended to deepen the existing relationship with both the ATM focused JTI

SESAR and ACARE also at working group level to share a better view within the JU at large about the airlines, ANSPs and other stakeholder communities.

In order to facilitate the CSJU management process, the Panel endorses the

recommendations of the previous evaluation and reiterates that the Governing Board

should focus on strategic decisions and increase the level of delegation of routine management issues to the Executive Director. The executive power of the Executive

Director needs to be strengthened towards managing all programme activities.

Responsibility for the implementation of the agreed executive team maximum budget should be fully given to the Executive Director.

The Panel considers the number of the technical staff as being insufficient and

recommends a review by the Governing Board of staff requirements to ensure that the

Executive Team can exercise in full its coordinating and monitoring functions. At the same

time the Panel recommends a review of potential horizontal services to be shared with other JUs and of administrative services that could be outsourced.

The Panel considers that the existing possibilities to redistribute the budget amongst ITDs

(as the transfer occurred in 2012 between ITDs) are an initial useful step to provide budget

flexibility. The Panel is of the opinion that contingency budget can bring about transversal flexibility and regrets that there is no contingency budget at this stage. Therefore the Panel

recommends to the Governing Board to consider introducing in the future a 5-10%

contingency budget to increase flexibility.

A detailed roadmap of technical progress should be established in order to compare

achievements against the plan. This roadmap should include key decision-making points and technological milestones.


The TE is not yet fully operational. It is not yet used to feed data back to the ITDs. This

feedback is considered of great importance to contribute to the consistency of the CS

activities. The sensitivity of the aircraft models and the confidentiality of the data about

performance improvement associated to technologies should be acknowledged and the benefits of establishing an additional advisory group should be considered. The reader is

referred to the recommendation of creating a “market” advisory group to the GB.

The envisaged developments involve safety-critical systems and operations. Consequently,

certification issues need to be considered already at early design and development stages.

The quality of the process of Call for Proposals is considered to be good, provides the

appropriate flexibility to adapt to individual ITD requirements and attracts a satisfactory

rate of applicants. However the Panel notes that the number of CfPs is very high in some

ITDs and is not systematically related to the size of the ITDs. Some other ITDs have

experienced delays in CfP preparations and unsuccessful topics.

Regarding the setup of potential future PPPs (i.e. Clean Sky 2) the Panel has compiled a detailed

list of recommendations (Section 8) of which the main ones are listed below:

The Panel recommends that before starting a future PPP, the Commission should ensure that

resources including a contingency budget and management tools are available and that an in-depth review of the technical programme is carried out.

The Panel recommends that the CS communication strategy allows for more efforts dedicated

to communicating the broader socio-economic and environmental impacts not only to the

aeronautical stakeholders, but also to the policy and decision makers at European and national levels. Both NSRG and STAB should be involved in these initiatives.

The Panel believes that communication between ITDs can be improved by using to a larger

extent the TE as a tool to feed back information and to discuss efficiency in technical matters.

A closer relationship with the working groups of ACARE and SESAR could also improve this

communication process. The JU team should be more involved in this process and additional resources need to be allocated to this task.

It is noted that the TRL evaluation occurs at a late stage of the Clean Sky plan. By the time the

TRL evaluation is performed, design concepts, technological developments and

implementation directions have been committed to a great cost. The Panel recommends an early evaluation of the TRL potential and its environmental benefit when a technology is

considered for Clean Sky. Lessons learnt from Clean Sky work should also be considered

regarding technologies that have been stopped.

Additionally to its higher TRL activities, Clean Sky 2 would be an appropriate framework to

implement and manage industry-led projects of the size of the former FP7 Level 2 projects. It is

important to devote a significant share of the budget to such projects, to bring technologies

from TRL 3 to TRL 4 or at best 5, without the a priori objective of contributing to a flying full

scale platform demonstrator. It is important that this type of industry-led projects is run directly by the JU without interference from higher TRL projects in Clean Sky.

This report is the result of a joint effort and the Panel wishes to acknowledge the support of the

European Commission and the CSJU for the organisation of the site visits, and to thank all companies involved and interviewees for their openness and valuable input.


1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Implementation of the Clean Sky JU

The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking was established in 2008 as a Public Private Partnership between the European Commission and the Aeronautical Industry as a Community Body by Council

Regulation (EC) 071/20081 on the basis of Article 187 of the TFEU

2 and in accordance with the

Financial Regulation3. The CSJU is planned to end on December 31

st, 2017. Clean Sky is supposed

to be followed by a new Private Public Partnership (Clean Sky 2) which is now proposed by the

Commission and is undergoing discussions with the Council. The CS2 activities are supposed to

run from 2014 to 2024, therefore there will be an overlap between 2014 and 2017 with Clean Sky (CS)..

The major aim of Clean Sky is to reduce the impact of aviation on the environment while at the same time safeguarding competitiveness as well as economic growth of the aeronautical sector in

Europe and so to contribute to the targets defined by the Advisory Council for Aeronautics

Research in Europe (ACARE) for reducing emissions and noise in air transport in Europe. Clean

Sky continues to work towards objectives and targets defined in the Strategic Research Agenda of the ETP ACARE

4 and its updates.

The CSJU addresses the implementation of innovative, environmentally friendly technologies in all

segments of civil air transport, including large commercial aircraft, regional aircraft, helicopters, and in all supporting technologies such as engines, systems and materials’ life cycle.

The maximum overall value of the contributions within CSJU reaches EUR 1,600 million.

The Founding Members of the CSJU are the European Union, represented by the European Commission (EC), 12 Integrated Technology Demonstrator (ITD) leaders and 72 Associates.

The CSJU activities are subdivided into in six technology areas – ‘Integrated Technology

Demonstrators (ITDs):

Vehicle ITDs: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) – 24% of the EC contribution,

Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) – 11% of the EC contribution,

Green Rotorcraft (GRC) – 10% of the EC contribution.

Transverse ITDs:

Systems for Green Operations (SGO) – 19% of the EC contribution,

Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE) – 27% of the EC contribution,

and an ITD that is transverse to all ITDs: EcoDesign (ED) - 7% of the EC contribution.

Around 2% of the budget is devoted to the Technology Evaluator (TE) with the aim of assessing

environmental impact and benefits of technologies arising from individual ITDs.

Most of the research, technological development and demonstration activities are carried out by the

Members of Clean Sky. The Members’ activities are formally covered by Grant Agreements for

1 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 71/2007 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Clean Sky Joint

Undertaking. OJ L 30/1-20, 4.2.2008;

see: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:030:0001:0020:EN:PDF 2 TFEU: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; Article 187 (ex-Article 171 of the EC Treaty):

The Union may set up joint undertakings or any other structure necessary for the efficient execution of Union

research, technological development and demonstration programmes. 3 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities. 4 http://www.acare4europe.com/

http://www.acare4europe.com/


Members (GAM). There is one amendment to the GAM per year and per ITD which specifies work

plan, resources and budget. Subcontractors are selected by Members through Calls for Tender.

A part of the Clean Sky programme using 25% of the EC contribution is performed by Partners selected through Calls for Proposals (CfP). In the evaluation period there have been on average

three CfP calls per year with on average 38 topics per call and 1.7 Partners per proposal. Including

Call 15, the average value for the 579 topics published is 665,000 €. Successful CfPs lead to the signature of Grant Agreement for Partners (GAP). The average GAP duration is 20 months.

The ITD and TE activities are coordinated and integrated by the CS JU Executive Team led by the

Executive Director (ExD). The CSJU supervisory body is the Governing Board (GB) with

representatives from the European Commission, ITD leaders and one Associate per ITD. The GB receives technical advice from the Scientific and Technical Advisory Board (STAB). For each ITD,

a Steering Committee is in charge of supervision and monitoring of the activities. The General

Forum provides the platform for involving all participants of CS Members and Partners. These bodies are complemented by the National State Representative Group (NSRG) which advises the

CSJU and liaises with the national programmes.

1.2 Objectives and scope of the Second Interim Evaluation

The present report is the result of the work of the Independent Expert Group (hereinafter referred to

as the “Panel”), appointed to assist the Commission in carrying out the second interim evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CS JU). The evaluation performed by the Panel is based on the

Terms of Reference (see Annexes, Section 10.3) defined by the European Commission.

The objective of this second interim evaluation is to assess the progress and achievements of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking as described in the Terms of Reference. The evaluation addressed the

following criteria:

Effectiveness: The progress towards meeting the objectives set, including how all parties in the

public-private partnerships live up to their financial and managerial responsibilities and keep

an open non-discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders.

Efficiency: The extent to which the JUs are managed and operate efficiently.

Research Quality: The extent to which the JUs enable world-class research that helps propel

Europe to a leadership position globally, and how JUs engage with a wider constituency to open the research to the broader society.

An important part of the mandate was to further elaborate and adapt specific questions addressing

the above criteria to the CSJU and ITDs so as to draw recommendations for the remaining activities under CS1 and - based on the lessons learnt - formulate recommendations for CS 2.

Following the evaluation of the CSJU performance, a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats) was performed in order to place the assessment in a broader setting, to review findings and to develop recommendations also for future activities under CS 2.

1.3 Methodology of the Second Interim Evaluation

The methodology followed by the Panel was based on the Terms of Reference, which provided a

set of predefined questions under the evaluation criteria. These questions were subsequently

supplemented by an additional set of “horizontal” as well as specific questions referring to the ITDs, which addressed the specificities of the different actors within the CSJU, and the Panel

agreed on a list of people to be interviewed (see Annexes, Section 10.3). The Panel undertook a

detailed review of the relevant documents. The documents surveyed can be found in Section 10.5.4..


The evaluation was performed by the Panel from the 5th of March until the 31

st of October 2013

with a combination of remote work, conference calls, six Panel meetings and several site visits. The

arrangement of technical visits to the companies and facilities within several ITDs represented a novel aspect of this 2

nd Interim Evaluation. Visits allowed the Panel to collect detailed technical

information and to see a representative selection of the demonstration hardware realised so far.

The scope of the technical visits varied due to resources constraints. A first two-day visit was organized at Airbus, Thales and Liebherr in Toulouse, France (May 23-24, 2013) in relation to the

activities within the SFWA, SGO and TE ITDs. All members of the Panel attended this meeting.

A second visit was organized at Rolls-Royce in Derby, UK (June 18, 2013) as a one-day meeting

and was attended by two members of the Panel. Detailed technical presentations were given to the Panel members about SAGE 1, 3 and 6, and the demonstration hardware was presented during a

visit of the workshop. Since no detailed presentations were given about SAGE 2, 4, and 5, one

member of the Panel attended as an observer the SAGE annual review meeting held in Trollhättan, Sweden (June 24-28, 2013).

Finally, another two day meeting was organized at Alenia-Aermacchi in Pomigliano d’Arco, Italy

(July 4-5, 2013) and attended by two members of the Panel for the assessment of the GRA ITD. In all these meetings, the activities related to the TE ITD were addressed, so that only the GRC and

ED ITDs were not covered by a technical visit and their assessment is based on presentations and

interviews. This choice was made by the Commission for reasons of budget resources and time

pressure.

The Panel built its assessment on (a) internal documents and published information, (b) direct

observations and (c), information gained in interviews with a wide range of Clean Sky

stakeholders, including representatives of Members, Partners and ITD leaders, members of CS bodies such as Governing Board, Scientific and Technical Board (STAB), National State

Representative Group (NSRG) as well as representatives of the CS JU Executive Office (see list in

Section 10.3.1 and 10.3.2).

This report is the result of a joint effort and the Panel wishes to acknowledge the support of the European Commission and the CSJU for the organisation of the site visits, and to thank all

companies involved and interviewees for their openness and valuable input.


2 Clean Sky - Overall Progress and Effectiveness

2.1 Progress towards environmental targets

The ACARE (Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe) performance targets for

2020 have been set in 2001 as reduction of CO2 by 50%, of NOx by 80%, noise by 50% and to make substantial contribution in reducing the environmental impact of the manufacture,

maintenance and disposal of aircraft and related products, for the overall air transport system

(ACARE Strategic Research Agenda, SRA, 2002). In 2007, the CS contribution to the ACARE goals was set as -10 to 20% CO2, - 10% NOx and -10dB noise by completion of the project in 2017

(see Clean Sky proposal 2007).

CS has experienced difficulties to monitor the 2007 indicative targets. These targets were not always consistent across the range of technologies. The product objectives were not clearly defined

down to CS specific technologies. The CS Development Plan (CSDP) provides a structured way to

monitor and assess the achievement of the environmental goals. Three complementary measures are used. These are the maturity of technologies in terms of Technology Readiness Levels (TRL),

the concept aircraft and demonstration programmes. The TRL monitors the maturity of

technologies within each ITD. The CS environmental benefits are measured by comparing the existing aircraft (baseline reference Y2000 and Y2020) and a virtual concept aircraft incorporating

CS technologies as defined by the aircraft ITDs. By the end of Clean Sky 1, the demonstration

programmes will allow to provide evidence of integration of several technologies and to indicate

the potential benefits in a relevant operational environment.

The Panel notes that the ACARE goals set for 2050 are:

75% reduction of CO2,

90% reduction of NOx, and

65% reduction of noise relative to 2000.

R-2.1 – CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in relation to CS objectives. The

Panel recommends a more transparent traceability between the ACARE goals and CS specific contribution.

R-2.2: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to provide more clarity and

consistency in the figures presented as well as on the assumptions taken for the evaluation of the

environmental targets in relation to the ACARE goals.

2.2 Progress towards definitions and development of demonstrators

At this stage, all demonstrators have been defined in terms of detailed concepts. Some of the ground or flight demonstrations have already been achieved with success. For some of other

demonstrators, unexpected difficulties emerging from the definition phase have led to re-

scheduling. Regarding the technical progress, the Panel agrees with the observation of the first interim review

that significant delays may have accumulated in some ITDs because of the CSJU set up time. The

Panel agrees that the slow start of the CSJU can to a great extent be imputed to the lack of

preparedness, both administrative and technical, when starting the Joint Undertaking. It is noted that, since then, some of the ITDs have caught up with the planning whereas others have

accumulated delays especially when the research content was complex. For some demonstrators,

those delays are exceeding two years.


Overall, the Panel considers that the technical development of the demonstrators is making

satisfactory progress. The reader is referred to Section 5 for the detailed description of

demonstrator progress within each ITD.

2.3 Coordination with FP7, SESAR and National Programmes

In essence, Clean Sky is targeting high TRL level activities in order to finally achieve demonstrator

vehicles or hardware. In this sense, it is understandable that there is a certain amount of overlap

with FP7 Level 2 projects, which are aiming at developing the underlying technologies at lower

TRL level. However, the boundaries between activities carried out within FP7 Level 2 programmes and Clean Sky are not clearly defined or explained. It is difficult to assess where

Level 2 projects stop and where Clean Sky starts. The Panel recognises that Clean Sky is intended

to bring those Level 2 technologies to a higher TRL level but the issues of double work and duplicating funding should be monitored (see R-SAGE.6 for example).

Regarding the coordination with SESAR, many interdependencies exist with several ITDs.

Concerning flight management for example, and as a transversal ITD, SGO has direct and indirect interfaces with GRA, GRC, SFWA, TE and of course SESAR. However, the initial link with

SESAR was not optimal. Delays on information from SESAR to CS have been identified and have

affected progress for example from SESAR to SGO MTM. This problem has been improved in

2012 and common reviews between programmes have been performed. The purpose of these reviews has been to identify potential overlaps in the themes related to flight management.

Important interfaces are reported to the general board and trans-ITD workshops on common themes

are organized. The interfaces are considered as being managed in an adequate manner.

Many interdependencies are also seen among ITDs and with other national and EC activities. The

Panel recommends incorporating current interface management practices into a specific interface

management function. Moreover, formal exchange of information should be established among the

CS, SESAR and other research programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020). This step will speed up research work and avoid a potential duplication of work. The Panel appreciates that Clean Sky is re-using

existing hardware developed under previous Framework Programmes.

R-2.3: It is recommended to deepen the existing relationship with both SESAR and ACARE aimimg - at working group level- to reach a better view within the JU at large about the airlines, ANSPs

and other stakeholder communities.

Regarding the link between Clean Sky and national research programmes, the Panel notes that the NSRG not only acts as an advisory group, but also represents an important interface with the

relevant stakeholders in their respective countries and in liaising with the national programmes -

where available - and in dissemination activities. It is also noted that - if compared with analogous

bodies in the other JUs (see Appendix 10.4) - the NSRG has had a proactive role in the Clean Sky initiatives. However, it was evident from interviewees’ comments that there is some regret that the

advisory role of the NSRG mostly focuses on the Call for Proposal process and that industry (and

the JU executive office) hardly consults them on other matters. The Panel received information that the NSRG would appreciate an early insight in the activity plans in order to better promote results

which are not confidential.

R-2.4: The Panel believes that information exchange between the JU and NSRG is very important and recommends that the NSRG continues to play a crucial role in ensuring coherence of national

programmes with Clean Sky.

2.4 Effectiveness in promoting participation

The Panel considers the participation of SMEs and the increase of new entrants in the JU and the

CfP procedures and regulations as satisfactory and appreciates the clear industry commitment to the programme.


The procedures, according to which the single entity applying is eligible for 50% or 75% and

depending on the legal status (for example industry or SME), appears adequate5.

The Panel notes that the average funding rate in Calls is 65.6% and considers satisfactory that the applicants’ success rate is approximately 35%. The calls and the JU appear to be successful in

attracting new players and the Panel notes that approximately 50% of the partners are new.

Although CS-JU is not perceived as SME-friendly, for SMEs the participation in CS is obviously attractive, especially for the opportunity to enter in the supply chain. The Panel appreciates that

SMEs account for 38% of participants in CfP and absorb 36% of the budget. There is a number of

SMEs also amongst the associates.

R-2.5: The Panel appreciates that Clean Sky does not require a consortium as a condition for participation to calls for proposals; even a single entity can apply and that there are a number of

mono-beneficiaries also amongst SMEs. It however recommends making the high participation of

SMEs and of new players more visible (seeing also 3.5 Efficiency in Communication).

2.5 Effectiveness of ITD and TE strategies

At this stage, all ITD strategies are defined; most of them are considered relevant and effective. The effectiveness of the strategies is depending on the capability of the ITD to adapt to the

changing market requirements. The reader is also referred to Section 5 (ITD progress).

TE still requires a further maturity gain before playing its full role in the assessment of the environmental benefits. The Panel believes that TE approach has a very high potential for being

adopted in other sectors to assess environmental benefits.

R-2.6: The Panel recognises that TRL concept has been refined during CS and recommends the

CSJU to disseminate the results across the R&D community.

R-2.7 – Lessons learnt for CS 2: The Panel recommends that a TRL check is performed before a technology is considered as a valid candidate for a CS project. This will avoid delays and

difficulties due to uncertain and/or low TRL.

R-2.8 – CS1 and CS2 related: The visit provided evidence of very good cooperation between

research development activities and flight test preparations. Detailed reviews have been conducted

including multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel in flight test. Moving from the example of the good GRA flight test preparation, the Panel recommends to ITDs to make greater

efforts to communicate and disseminate best practices and encourages them to extract from

successful cases of other ITDs useful lessons for own future activities.

2.6 Clean Sky response to changing industrial strategies and research needs

The main change occurring in Europe during Clean Sky was probably the postponement of the new air transport short-range aircraft far into the 2020’s. As a consequence some key technologies are

less under pressure to reach TRL 6 by 2017.

Changes and adaptations have been related to address technological setbacks, cancellation of

technologies, introduction of new technologies from on-going technological developments, reduction of TRL scope, delays in test rig building, Intellectual Property Rights issues and

withdrawal of some partners. Decision-making needs to consider trade-offs between most

promising technologies, its industrial applicability, schedule and budget. There are activities that

5 In case of a consortium, both funding criteria apply and the resulting funding is an average of the two

percentages, weighted by the actual contributions of each partner.


have been deleted in the updated GAM, the rationale and consequences are not justified with

sufficient detail.

R-2.9 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The traceability and evolutions of the GAM should be better documented to establish and assess its overall compliance and performance. Further, this

traceability should track changes in the GAM and its impact. This action ensures the ability of the

programme to adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

2.7 Clean Sky response to previous evaluations

An adequate procedure to analyse and implement recommendations from the 1st Interim Evaluation

was presented to the Panel. Most of the recommendations targeting the JU and the Governing Board concerning implementation bottlenecks have been realised or are under implementation.

However, the completion of a number of recommendations is still pending or is on-going. The

Panel estimated that the CSJU and ITDs have implemented more than half of the recommendations

from 1st interim evaluation.

The Table below shows an overview of recommendations and the status of their implementation.

Table 1: Status of implementation of the recommendations

Category Overview Closed In

progress No action Comment

GB 7 recommendations 3 3 1 Limited staff still

no action

Future PPP 3 recommendations 3 In progress with

H2020 definition

Schedule and risk

management

13 recommendation 11 2 No formal review

on GAPs, No contingency

plan moved to CS2

Call & GAP 5 recommendations 1 2 1 No action due to

lack of resources.

No full

responsibility of

implementation to

ExD

Policy 2 recommendations 1 1 1 is relevant to the

EC

Management 7 recommendations 5 1 1 No extra staff

Communication 3 recommendations 1 2

Assessment 3 recommendations 2 1

Coordination 5 recommendations 3 2 1 NSGR

coordination still

needs to be

improved

Diverse 2 recommendation 2

Total 50 28 17 5

The Panel appreciates the systematic process for evaluation and implementation. It is also noticed that the implementation of the recommendations requires time and additional efforts.


2.8 Complementarity with other activities in Horizon 2020

Clean Sky 2 industry-led projects (equivalent to FP7 Level2 collaborative projects).

Clean Sky has demonstrated the ability to run projects of the size of FP 7 Level 2 research projects.

The CSJU is well organised and has developed efficient processes in order to run collaborative research projects. They involve Research Establishments, SMEs and Universities.

R-2.10: Additionally to its higher TRL activities, Clean Sky 2 would be an appropriate framework to implement and manage industry-led projects of the size of the former FP7 Level 2 projects. It is

important to devote a significant share of the budget to such projects, to bring technologies from

TRL 3 to TRL 4 or at best 5, without the a priori objective of contributing to a flying full scale

platform demonstrator.

R-2.11: It is important that this type of industry-led project is run directly by the JU without

interference from higher TRL projects in Clean Sky.

R-2.12: These projects should use the Technology Evaluator to provide inputs during the

evaluation phase and to assess environmental impact and efficiency at the end of the projects.

2.9 Concluding Statements

The Panel is convinced that - in spite of initial delays due to the slow start – the JU has marked

satisfactory progress towards meeting the objectives set and has manifested an open non-

discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders. In particular, there has been

an effective strategy (e.g. methods, processes and tools) in launching and managing the Calls for

proposals, in selecting the best proposals, managing successfully “level 2 like” projects and

promoting participation of SMEs and increasing the rate of new entrants in the JU and the CfP.

The existing links with both SESAR and ACARE need being enhanced and it is important to

reach a better view within the JU at large about the airlines, ANSPs and other stakeholders.

Also the technical development of the demonstrators is making satisfactory progress. The Panel

believes that by the end of Clean Sky 1, the demonstration programmes will allow to provide

evidence of integration of several technologies and to indicate the potential benefits in a relevant

operational environment.


3 Clean Sky Joint Undertaking - Organisation and Efficiency

In considering the appropriateness of the organisation and the efficient use of resources, in line

with the terms of reference of the second interim evaluation, several aspects were analysed. These

include the clarity of the overall legal framework and the modalities for the implementation of the JU programme, the governance structure and processes, the robustness of the monitoring and

control system – including the level of supervision/control within the JU and the appropriateness of

the available capabilities to monitor progress – the use of funding and the communication and

dissemination strategy.

3.1 Appropriateness of the CS legal framework and governance

The Clean Sky JU as a public-private-partnership between the European Union, represented by the

Commission (public partner) and Industry consisting of 12 ITD leaders and 72 Associates (private

partners) represents a suitable vehicle for stimulating aeronautic research and development in Europe. The Panel considers the JU legal framework as set out in its Statutes to be appropriate. In

the review period, the CS JU has increased its efficiency and has implemented most of the 1st

Interim review recommendations.

The Clean Sky JU governance, based on three bodies (Governing Board, Scientific Technical Advisory Board, Executive Director with the support of the Clean Sky Executive Office) and

supported by external advisory bodies (National States Representatives Group and Stakeholder

Forum) appears well-suited to achieve the Clean Sky objectives.

The Panel reviewed the governance documents regarding the Clean Sky JU, interviewed members

of various bodies and committees, considered their roles appropriate and found all governance

bodies well integrated and working efficiently. On the whole, the Panel rates the present CSJU governance form as appropriate and efficient. The STAB and NSRG mandates are clear within the

governance structure and their current configuration appears adequate for these mandates. The

governance structure represents a valid model to be continued also in the future.

The Governing Board (GB) is working well. The industrial governance structure has proven to be sound and efficient. Criticism has been expressed about the fact that the role of Associates in the

governance has been limited and fragmented and the possibility for strengthening their role has

been voiced. The Panel analysed this issue and concluded that the role and achievements of associates are sufficiently considered as the Associate Member is supposed to seek advice from the

other Associates and hence they are adequately represented in the Governing Board. The Panel

regards amendments as not necessary.

The Steering Committee for ITD: There are several activities addressing coordination among ITDs. The Panel collected evidence that potential synergies between ITDs are not fully exploited. For

example, coordination with SAGE and modelling activities between TE and other ITDs are

necessary to ensure timely results.

The Scientific Technical Advisory Board (STAB): The STAB is part of the governance structure,

but its role is primarily advisory and not in decision making. The Panel notes that the STAB can

count on highly qualified members that (pro)actively participate in the Clean Sky activities, especially in the review and monitoring process. The Panel appreciates that members of the STAB

participate in annual and various other reviews and that each STAB member is associated with at

least two ITDs and checks the quality of the reports they deliver and that they have produced since

2012 a synthesis of the annual reviews outcomes. The Panel values the STAB working groups on socio-economic implications and follows with interest the recent development of a matrix with

various criteria addressing innovation, environment, competitiveness, etc.

R-3.1.1: The Panel recommends that the STAB contributions needs to be preserved and enhanced for example in drafting the future updates of the SRIA. Their role – also for a CS2 – is considered


significant and it is recommended to ensure that high quality individuals are willing to be involved

as it is the case in Clean Sky.

The National States Representative Group (NSRG): The Panel notes that the NSRG not only acts as an advisory group, but also represents an important interface with the relevant stakeholders in

their respective countries and in liaising with the national programmes - where available - and in

dissemination activities. It is also noted that - if compared with analogous bodies in the other JUs (see Appendix 10.6) - the NSRG has had a proactive role in the Clean Sky initiatives.

R-3.1.2: Notwithstanding the valuable involvement of the advisory bodies, there is still room for a

greater and more pro-active involvement of the STAB and NSRG. The CS-JU should seek to

maximize the potential of its advisory bodies to gain support for the remaining calls and other activities at all levels.

R-3.1.3 - Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel believes important that a constant feedback on

National Programmes to the JU takes place and that in the future the NSRG maintains a strong role and continues to exchange experiences, to advise and provide recommendations to the JU

Executive team.

The General Forum of Stakeholders (GFS)

The General Forum of Stakeholders is working well and appears efficient; it plays an important

role for partners with no direct access to the ITD steering committee. The Panel endorses plans to reshape the GFS with workshops and working groups.

3.2 Appropriateness of the JU internal rules and funding

The first interim evaluation criticised that the Community Body status of the CSJU entails rules and uses procedures not common to industrial practice. These rules and procedures were alleged to

be constraining and inhibiting for achieving the Clean Sky objectives. In general the JU has stepped

up its efficiency over the review period, especially through implementation of most of the 1st

interim review recommendations. The Panel notes that important steps have been taken to reduce red tape and to introduce some elements of flexibility. However, there is still room for

improvement.

3.2.1 JU internal rules

The Panel notes that there have been improvements in the JU internal rules and procedures (in line

with the developments proposed within the 2008 review and the first interim review in 2010) to

enable Clean Sky to reach its full potential. Since the last evaluation some flexibility has been

achieved. However, the Panel considers that more flexibility in the JU internal rules and procedures are necessary to enhance Clean Sky efficiency. This regards especially attributing more autonomy

to the executive director and granting a certain budgetary flexibility.

The Panel also shares the view expressed in the stakeholders’ consultation in 2012 that the PPP in form of a joint undertaking is an appropriate instrument that allows multi-year continuity and

visibility. This is one of the strengths of Clean Sky in FP7 as it has enabled to avoid the

fragmentation typical of smaller short term projects, and has given the appropriate setting for meeting the ACARE goals set in Vision 2020s.

R-3.2.1: The Panel underlines that the Clean Sky JU also contributes to achieving the roadmaps

that have been jointly agreed between all stakeholders, considers the multi-annual approach as

advantageous and recommends this to be continued in the future.

The previous interim evaluation recommended reviewing the level and type of GAM-related

decisions which could be delegated to the JU Executive Director and recommended that the GB

should focus on strategic decisions and delegate routine management to the Executive Director. It was found important to strengthen the executive power of the Director especially towards ITDs.

The Panel shares this view and believes that too little progress has been made to that extent.


The previous interim review underlined that amendments to the GAMs are negotiated every year,

even though activities covered by GAMs are multi-annual. They remarked that annual budget

process provokes certain rigidity in the CS multi-annual work plan, worsened by the fact that the annual budget tends to become frozen well before the start of the year. The Panel shares this view.

R-3.2.2: The Panel regrets that concerning the negotiation of a multi-annual GAM, there continues

to be a need for more flexibility in the management of GAMs. In general, the Panel recommends more discretionary power for the Executive Director in management matters and believes that

GAM budget transfers should be initiated, negotiated and implemented by the Executive Director.

This step would help speeding up the implementation of necessary decisions since it would no

longer be necessary to involve the Governing Board..

R-3.2.3: The Panel is aware that recommendations have been issued concerning completeness and

timing of the strategic planning (CSDP) and alignment with annual planning (AIP) and annual

amendments of the GAMs. In this context a specific finding has been raised by the Internal Audit Service (IAS) concerning subsequent changes of topics compared to the approved AIP. The Panel

endorses plans to delegate a number of decisions and functions from the GB to the ED for the

approval of such changes to ensure the required flexibility for the JU to adapt the lists of topics to the actual needs during the year.

3.2.2 Efficiency of funding and budget

The three different levels of engagement and commitment through Founding Members, Associates

and Partners have demonstrated their feasibility. The Panel shares the view that the present funding procedure is adequate, though not entirely efficient. The Panel regrets that there is still little budget

flexibility to shift budget from one ITD to another and that a qualified majority is needed. Also the

limited flexibility to shift funds to later years can be considered as an obstacle to increase efficiency. This applies for both members’ activities within the ITD programme, and partners’

activities through CfPs.

Budgetary constraints can be problematic when delays occur and there are no straightforward

mechanisms to shift unfinished tasks from one year to another. The Panel notes that in the initial phase of the JU there has been under-spending, which has now been recovered. Now, certain

flexibility is available and there are possibilities to shift budget according to the so called ”3-years

rule”.

R-3.2.4.: The Panel considers that the existing possibilities to redistribute the budget amongst ITDs

(as the transfer occurred in 2012 between ITDs) are an initial useful step to provide some budget

flexibility. The Panel is of the opinion that contingency budget can bring about transversal flexibility and regrets that there is no contingency budget. Therefore the Panel recommends to the

Governing Board to consider introducing a 5-10% contingency budget to increase flexibility.

Concerning the planning processes of the JU’s grant management, the Panel notes that the IAS has

put forwards recommendations concerning the JU’s control of the multi-annual and annual budgeting. The IAS requested the JU to ensure the overall budget re-allocation at programme level

including its timely approval by the GB and to complete the information provided in the GAMs on

budget distribution. The Panel understands that re-allocation of the budget to completion has been established by the JU and has been approved by the GB. The Panel endorses this recommendation

and considers these actions necessary to improve the efficiency of the process.

The private stakeholders in Clean Sky contribute financially to the running costs of the JU and the

management costs. This creates considerable administrative burden as all Members are invoiced. In addition, Associates are expected to contribute to the management costs of the ITD leaders, without

being able to charge their own management costs. These bottlenecks need to be addressed and

straightforward solutions looked for.

The Panel is aware that the procedures in use to verify that Members’ in-kind contributions to CS

match the cash contribution from the EC. The verification is carried out at three levels, by audits

inside the Members’ organisations, by a CS audit on the basis of the documents provided and by an ex-post audit of Members’ expenses against the specified GAM activities.


R-3.2.5: The Panel is of the opinion that the verification of in-kind contribution is still a laborious

and time-consuming issue to manage and to negotiate and that the current procedure is not

efficient. Therefore it recommends steps to simplify the procedure.

R-3.2.6 - Lessons learnt for CS2: It has been critically remarked that the Clean Sky Financial

Regulations only allow for either 20% flat rate without justification or real overheads and that

there is nothing in between. For CS 2 it is recommended to verify whether there are more efficient solutions.

3.3 Efficiency of the JU Executive Team organisation and procedures

3.3.1. Efficiency of the JU Executive Team

There is an authorised ceiling of 24 members of staff. Of these there are eight project officers; 75%

of staff dealing with operational activity (technical and financial); six staff on horizontal support,

e.g. Executive Director, Head of Administration, secretary, Internal Auditor etc. The direct management of the research programme is carried out by eight project officers. Of the estimated

442 projects, 342 GAP (Grant Agreement for Partners) and 7 GAM (Grant Agreement for

Members) each Project officers appears to manage 1 GAM and 60 GAPs on average. Given the

complexity of the process, the high technical level of the work and the large number of projects this is commendable. The Panel recognises the heavy work load of the JU Executive Team by JU

management tasks, CfPs, grant agreements, reviews, and ITD monitoring.

These figures suggest that the JU - when measured by projects managed per project officer - is very efficient. There is however a patent imbalance between technical and administrative staff, and this

may cause excessive indirect costs which can be partly explained by the small size of the

organisation and an apparent need for autonomous services in administration, legal affairs, human resources, accountancy, information technology, auditing, procurement, etc. Considering that there

are other JUs also located in the same premises of the CSJU it is hard to justify this extent of

autonomy. The Panel is of the opinion that savings could be achievable by sharing services with

other JUs6.

R-3.3.1: Notwithstanding that the Executive Office has made significant progress in speeding up

processes and reaching operational efficiency, the Panel recommends that some further

adjustments will be carried out to improve efficiency. Now that the Clean Sky JU is well established, the balance of skills between general administration and project management in the

Executive Office needs some readjustment.

R-3.3.2: The Panel considers the number of the technical staff as being insufficient and recommends a review by the Governing Board of staff requirements to ensure that the Executive

Team can exercise in full its coordinating and monitoring functions. At the same time the Panel

recommends a review of potential services to be shared with other JUs and of administrative

services that could be outsourced.

R-3.3.3: The Clean Sky Executive Office should seek further ways of reducing bureaucracy and

ensure that it has the optimal organisational structure for the tasks ahead.

R-3.3.4: Although participation and success rate of the applications indicate that the performance of the JU in administration of the programme, project management and programme design and

implementation is adequate and capable, the Panel notes that the “Time to grant” is still rather

high (240 days from call publication to GAP; 360 days on average for grants signed in 2012) and

recommends this to be shortened.

6 There are already services that are shared as logistics (building and the IT infrastructure). There is a regular

coordination between Internal Audit Functions of the three JUs (IMI, FCH and CS; see Appendix 10.6) in place for issues of horizontal nature (e.g. audit methodology, approach towards the Court of Auditors). Audit

services are also shared between JUs when it is the most cost-efficient solution (e.g. common framework

contract on Ex-Post audits, joint engagements, etc.).


3.3.2. Efficiency of the JU organisational and control procedures

The Panel considers the organisational and control structure of the JU Executive Team to be adequate to fulfil its objectives. The Panel appreciates that a Management Manual describing

internal rules and procedures has been operated for years.

Concerning the internal control system and quality management, the Panel understands that the process structure of the internal control system and quality management including steering the JU

(CS strategy, annual objectives, AIP, quality management, budget, accounts, risk management,

financial reporting, etc.); Programme Management, Management of the executive team,

Communication Management and Quality Management (process management, ICS, periodic progress reviews, KPIs, management of exceptions, ex-post audits) and Audits Management

represents a complex, valid instruments of internal control and quality system contributing to an

efficient management.

R-3.3.5: The Panel recognises the value of the adopted system of 16 internal control standards

representing a robust system for an efficient and effective management, notes that there is a

satisfactory alignment of strategic and annual planning and recommends its systematic

implementation.

The Panel understands that the Clean Sky Internal Audit Officer has a focus on advisory services,

risk assessment, ex-post audit process and that the AO has “internal” advisory function and

partially management role. The Panel is convinced by the arguments of the CSJU stressing the high added value of an internal audit function and considering this a more efficient solution than

outsourcing.

The Panel shares the view expressed in the stakeholders consultation of 2012 that programme activities and CfPs should be implemented on a multi-annual basis and that a mechanism has to be

implemented to shift funds and activities from one year to the next one. The preferred solution

would be multi-annual financial commitments comparable to L1 and L2 projects in collaborative

research.

R-3.3.6: The Panel appreciates the intention of the JU (as in the GB meeting of 22.3.2013) to

launch trainings for Topic Managers and endorses endeavours to increase the monitoring from the

Project Officers and the administration team, to make sure that delays and problems in execution of the projects are tackled as soon as possible. These steps are important ones to address

bottlenecks currently limiting the overall efficiency.

R-3.3.7: The Panel appreciates that in the evaluation period ex-post audits of financial statements of CS JU beneficiaries have been implemented and recommends that the efforts undertaken to

reduce the error rates will be continued. It values that the JU has put efforts in improving its ex-

ante validation process and has provided extensive guidance to its beneficiaries concerning the

eligibility of costs for the Clean Sky projects.7

3.4 Efficiency of ITD organisations and procedures

The Clean Sky structure, with six separate Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs) covering

Green Rotorcraft, Regional Aircraft, Eco-Design, Engines, Smart fixed Wing and Green Operations, each led by two “industry” leaders has proven to be effective.

7 To date, 65 audits have been launched, out of which 52 have been finalised. Audit results have been implemented (i.e.

overpayments were recovered) with more than 96%. The residual error rate, reflecting the remaining errors in favour of the JU - after corrective measures have been taken place- passed from 4.22% in 2011 to 1.29% in 2012, resulting in an accumulated rate of 2.77.


However, the Panel notes that management processes and tools differ from ITD to ITD. There is no

evidence of harmonized management approaches, including resource allocations, milestone

achievements, deliverable measurements and budget spending. These issues will be further analysed under Section 5.

R-3.4.1: The Panel appreciates that the monitoring and control tools are mature and implemented.

The Panel recommends harmonised progress activity reports and technical evaluation reports across ITDs. In particular, progress reports should contain achieved progress against plans, and

achieved deliverables against planned deliverables. The Panel recommends technical evaluation

reports to follow the EC standard. This standard is useful in terms of evaluating in a systematic

manner technical and management aspects.

3.5 Efficiency of communication

In general, the Panel commends the JU Executive Team for the adoption of a “Communication and

Dissemination” strategy, but considers communication and dissemination as key issues deserving even more attention.

3.5.1. Internal communication

Communication between and within the JU Executive Team and ITDs appears to be satisfactory. Apart from channels such as the ITD Steering Committees, there are direct links between ITD

leaders and the JU project officers which have proved crucial in identifying in a timely manner

difficult issues and interfaces.

General communication with all stakeholders is achieved through the General Forum, which is especially helpful for partners without a direct access to ITD Steering Committees. Communication

between ITDs is still limited and should be enhanced.

R-3.5.1: Cooperation and exchange between ITDs appear to be still limited and should be enhanced. Models and tools produced across ITDs should be analysed in the view of potential

complementarities. The TE interface with other ITDs deserves careful attention to ensure timely

results.

R-3.5.2 - Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel believes that communication between ITDs can be

improved by using to a larger extent the TE as a tool to feed back information and to discuss

efficiency matters. A closer relationship with the working groups of ACARE and SESAR could also

improve this communication process. The JU team should be more involved in this process and additional resources need to be allocated to this task.

3.5.2. External communication

The Panel appreciates that achievements have been made in the “Communication and Dissemination” strategy and notes that a number of publications have been released. However it

regrets that there are no adequate metrics to document and measure outreach and satisfaction rate.

The Panel values that Clean Sky has been involved in the organisation/participation in major events

including also Clean Sky SME Day in May 2013 and the Paris Air Show in June 2013. However, the Panel believes that more structured outreach activities and promotion are needed in non-

scientific/technical media. The Panel is of the opinion that there is a need for a communication

strategy with overarching goals for increasing awareness levels and perception of Clean Sky amongst all target groups in order to reach new players and SMEs and involve them in the

development process.

R-3.5.3: The Panel believes that raising the profile of Clean Sky and the importance of being a PPP are key aspect of CS’s communications objectives. The Panel endorses the recommendations

of the previous interim evaluation and reiterates that CS should improve its visibility to the

interested public.

R-3.5.4: The Panel appreciates the effort on the part of the Executive Office to communicate call topics and disseminate the Clean Sky initiatives via publications. However the Panel felt that, as

there have been more successes stories coming out of the projects, these could form the basis for


intensified dissemination targeted to a broader range of stakeholders, including policymakers

within the Member States.

R-3.5.5: The technical information on the website should be improved, with more active involvement and input from the ITDs. Moreover it is deemed necessary to find forms for

communicating the activities and assessment of the TE.

R-3.5.6: The Panel recommends that the CS communication strategy puts more dedicated efforts for communicating the broader socio-economic and environmental impacts not only to the

aeronautical stakeholders, but also to the policy and decision makers at the European and national

levels. The NSRG and STAB should be involved in these initiatives.

The Panel appreciates that the JU plans to meet some Permanent Representations of Member States, in cooperation with the NSRG members and understands that the European Parliament is a

major target, in particular in the preparation of CS2. Nonetheless a strategy how to address

institutional actors and MEPs appears to be missing and is deemed necessary.

The Panel believes that in this process the NSRG should be actively involved and should activate

organisations and multipliers within their specific countries. Additionally, the members’ network

could provide local insight and implementation for specific campaign measures.

R-3.5.7: The Panel commends that Clean Sky has been successful in attracting a high level of

interest from companies, well above the average participation of industrial entities in collaborative

projects in FP7. However the Panel notes that although there is a remarkably high participation of

SMEs, Clean Sky is still perceived as “big industry and big technology” and therefore recommends that success stories involving SMEs should be communicated on the website and in dedicated

publications.


Overall the Panel believes that the Clean Sky governance is efficient in the management of the

programme and delivery of calls and projects and considers the present governance structure a

valid model to be continued also in the future. However, efforts for increasing the organisational

efficiency, reducing the administrative burden and enhancing internal and external

communication are still required. The Panel recommends strengthening the resources of the JU

alongside with the streamlining of the potential services which could be shared with other JUs.

Communication and dissemination efforts are satisfactory; however it is deemed necessary that

the CS communication strategy puts more dedicated efforts for communicating the broader

socio-economic and environmental impacts not only to the aeronautical stakeholders, but also to

the policy and decision makers at the European and national levels. The NSRG and STAB

should be involved in these initiatives.


4 Quality

4.1 Quality of activities

For the 1st Interim Review of Clean Sky, the Panel stated that “no in-depth assessment of the

overall quality of the activities was attempted by the Panel”. The assessment was based on specific technical examples for each ITD which were presented to the Panel. These examples provided

evidence of the high quality of activities.

For this 2nd

Interim Evaluation, a major change was the arrangement of technical visits on site, with at least a full day meeting (or more) of technical presentations. Those site visits have been

appreciated by the Panel, as they provided specific technical information and the possibility to

discuss - in the workshop - with engineers who directly participated in the product development.

The current assessment of the quality of the research activities is therefore based on a much more empirical base. Section 5 reports in detail the status of technical progress which could be assessed

in this manner for each ITD.

Technical presentations, documentation and technical visits provided evidence of excellent specific technical achievements in many cases. The technical presentations provided evidence of the

complexity of certain tasks in the demonstrator developments. Many promising technologies were

presented by the ITDs in terms of software and hardware. There is evidence that the CSJU has contributed to progress beyond the state-of-the-art in Aeronautics.

R-4.1: The Panel recognises the added value of technical visits and technical presentation

meetings which provide more insight and allow a deeper analysis and enable an objective

assessment. The Panel considers this as a key instrument to assess the quality of the technical developments and recommends to make site visits an integral part of the review process.

There is no doubt about the quality and the relevance of the technical activities carried out within Clean Sky. However, problems of resource allocation together with “slipping” schedules may end

up jeopardizing this quality is some cases.

R-4.2 - Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to all participants to carry out a realistic risk analysis and establish early mitigation plans. For large ITDs it is recommended to adopt

systematically an industrial project management methodology from the very beginning of the

project.

In some areas, the Panel noted that the CSJU could benefit from advances in other industries e.g.

ED-Design would profit from developments in the automotive industry.

Overall, the Panel believes that the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators portfolio is of high

quality and in some cases excellent. The Panel collected evidence that the JU is perceived as a

flagship for Public Private Partnership supported aeronautical R&D.

4.2 Members’ and Partners’ quality

The members and partners are of high quality as are the major players in the European aeronautical

industry. They possess the critical mass needed to achieve the ambitious CS objectives. The Panel

appreciates that there is a wide diversity in terms of stakeholders, including industry, academia, research organisations, and SMEs and that a good fraction of them are coming from domains other

than aeronautics.

However, it is noticed that some partners have not attributed strong priority to CS work causing delays on specific developments, in most cases by not allocating the required resources.

4.3 Quality of Calls for Proposals

The CSJU provided information about topics and outcome from the evaluation of the CfPs. The proposals are evaluated in terms of specific criteria: technical excellence, innovative character,


adequacy and quality of the respondents and contribution to European competitiveness. These

proposals are evaluated by internal ITD experts and external experts. Good examples of high

quality developments produced by CfPs and used within ITDs were provided during the review.

The quality of the process is good, provides the appropriate flexibility to adapt to individual ITD

requirements and attracts a satisfactory rate of applicants.

However the Panel notes that:

The number of CfPs is very high in some ITDs and is not systematically related to the size of

the ITDs: Eco-Design, for example, has launched a high number of CfPs. Other ITDs have

experienced delays in CfP preparations and unsuccessful topics e.g. SGO and SAGE.

R-4.3: In case of a large number of proposals for a specific ITD, the Panel recommends a flexible

distribution of responsibilities in order to optimise the associated work load within the JU.

The Panel is aware that there have been some complaints about the rigidity of the topic description

received by the applicants and for not allowing enough room for innovation.

R-4.4: It is proposed that the topics include the possibility to present a more innovative approach leading same results than the one described in the topic.

The technical quality and the relevance of the CfPs have not been analysed in detail by the

Panel. Technical ITD reviews do not analyse the quality of CfP in a systematic manner. Still, the Panel believes that the technical quality regarding the objectives of the research and the

relevance of the content regarding the research pursued by the ITD can be improved in some

instances. In some cases it also appeared that developments starting at very low TRL (1-2)

were proposed as CfPs to be launched at a late stage of projects. This weakens credibility and could be interpreted as a means of using underspent budgets.

R-4.5: It is recommended that the technical ITDs reviews include a systematic CfP review to monitor and contribute to the high quality of the CfP. This would establish a clear connection

between CfP topic and ITDs activities thus improving the focusing of the technical activities.

R-4.6: The Panel notes that, in some cases, the inappropriate choice of subcontractors has led to

poor results relative to the project they are related to. The Panel therefore recommends the JU to

investigate possible ways of improving the selection process of subcontractors.


There is no doubt about the quality and the relevance of the technical activities carried out

within Clean Sky. However, problems of resource allocation together with “slipping” schedules

may end up jeopardizing this quality is some cases.

Overall, the Panel believes that the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators portfolio is of

very high quality. The Panel collected evidence that the JU is perceived as a flagship for Public

Private Partnership supported aeronautical R&D.


5 Clean Sky ITDs and Technology Evaluator - Progress and

Effectiveness

5.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA)

The SFWA Objectives

The objective of the “Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft” ITD flying demonstrator is to develop and

validate up to TRL 6 innovative technologies which were at TRL 2 or 3 level at the time of the CS

launch in order to demonstrate a step improvement in the area of fuel consumption and noise emissions. To this end the SFWA ITD integrates innovative wing and airframe concepts of

different types. The objective to bring most of these technologies up to TRL6 maturity (last stage

of technology maturity before development phase) will allow trade-offs between technologies and technology insertion risk management to be performed prior to insertion of these technologies on a

large scale new aircraft development programme.

The SFWA Structure and Research Programme

The SFWA ITD programme is quite complex. It consists of major components and technology

streams. The three major components paths are: Smart Wing Technology (SFWA1); New

Configuration (SFWA2), linked to interfaces and technology assessment and Flight Demonstration (SFWA3). Currently, this ITD addresses eight “technology streams” as shown in the Figure below.

Figure 5.1.1. SFWA and technology streams

Natural Laminar flow: The objective is to achieve TRL 6. The major technologies are

aerodynamic wing design, structural concepts and actuation (leading edge Kruegers), anti-icing, surface quality, trailing edge for both high speed and low speed operations, health

monitoring. The work to be performed includes development, integration, manufacturing

process demonstration, maintainability demonstration and flight test demonstration.

Hybrid laminar Flow: it is considered as a fall back solution in case of disappointing results for

the Natural Laminar Flow projects.

Fluidic Control Surfaces: it is designed to enhance high lift performance. It uses innovative

concepts to generate high lift of leading edge and trailing edge. Numerical studies have been


produced. Computational fluid analysis and wing tunnel were presented in the reviewed

documents (e.g. wind tunnel test on a passive leading edge device).

Load Control Functions and Architectures (TS5): it focuses on design and evaluation in wind

tunnel. It covers active load control with sensors and control surfaces, passive methods using

structural and aero design, vibration and damage control.

Buffet Control: it is focused on design and wind tunnel tests. Developments use passive and

active devices relevant for turbulent and laminar flows. Test campaigns aim to demonstrate the

achievement of TRL4 by using several study concepts and possibly a large scale model.

CROR, engine integration: it is designed to test interactions between engine and airframe in

flight. The flying test bed selected is an A340. It is a complete design; integration and test projects include wind tunnel and flight tests.

Integration of Innovative Turbofan engine to Bizjets: It is the integration of a rear fuselage

section with rear mounted engines. The project will address design and ground tests. A full scale model was planned to demonstrate acoustics, thermal and vibration characteristics.

Advanced Flight Test instrumentation: it is designed to support the testing phases of the Flight

Demonstrators. Two approaches are used: i) low risk integrating sensors with high TRL that do not compromise the demonstrator and ii) novel sensors with the potential to improve

significantly the demonstrator in terms of new knowledge. There is a need for a new

technology in this field enabling fine measurements during the test phases. The technologies

need to be selected and brought to TRL 6.

The original plan included nine technology streams. The innovative control surfaces technology

stream has been merged with the other technology streams. These technology streams contribute to the following key activities:

Smart Wing Technologies encompassing development, integration and flight test demonstration on a large scale. The topics addressed by this activity are: Natural Laminar Flow, Hybrid Laminar

Flow and Active and Passive load control. This activity addresses also the innovative enabling

materials and innovative manufacturing technologies required to provide TRL 6 validated solutions

for each of the topics.

Innovative Power Plant Integration is focused on technology integration and the objective is to

provide large scale flight demonstration. This activity addresses impact of airframe flow field on propeller design (acoustics, aerodynamics, vibrations) and impact of Open Rotor configuration on

airframes (certification, structure, vibration modes, noise).

Innovative empennage design concentrates on the validation of a structural rear empennage concept for noise shielding engine integration on business jets; eight leaders are contributing with seven

associated partners.

The structure of the programme is complex because it covers vertical components paths (SFWA1,

2 and 3) and technology streams. A matrix was prepared in 2011 to formalize structure, functions

and management distribution between SFWA work packages and technology streams. In addition a correlation matrix was prepared to indicate input and output from each task.

Key deliverables:

The five major demonstrators planned are:


High speed smart wing flight demonstrator (BLADE) based on an A340-300 to validate low

drag solutions for wings. Two different technologies will be tested simultaneously with two

different wing tips (8 meters long).

Figure 5.1.2. High Speed Flight Demonstrator (BLADE), Low Speed Demonstrator (Ground

and Flight) and Innovative Empennage Ground Demonstrator

Low speed smart wing demonstrator including a smart flap large scale ground demonstrator

and a low speed vibration control flight test demonstrator.

Innovative empennage ground demonstrator to validate the noise shielding function on a

business jet configuration.

Figure 5.1.3. Long Term Technology Flight Demonstrator and CROR engine demonstration

Innovative engine demonstrator flying test bed on A340-600 of a CROR engine

Long term technology flight demonstrator tested in service on an operational aircraft: A300

Beluga to test in service maintainability and performance of airframe surfaces.

Contribution to ACARE’s goals:

The SFWA ITD is key to provide significant contribution to the CS objectives, thereby

contributing to the ACARE’s objectives. For example, the Smart Wing projects are intended to provide CO2 and NOx reduction by 10% by using Natural Laminar Flow contributing for 7% and

the associated weight reduction contributing to 3%; -15 to -20% fuel burn through integration of

the CROR. The ITD is determinant for the success of the TE because it provides all figures at airframe level and the associated models.

Airbus and its main partners have a precise understanding of each technology potential contribution

to the aircraft performance. This is a core competence of airframers and it is a very sensitive

element of the aircraft economical performance as well. As such, it is highly confidential. As it represents a key contribution to the TE to CS global challenges, some attention should be paid to

this matter. The sensitivity of the subject should be taken into account. In order to enhance the TE

efficiency, it is deemed necessary to integrate all the inputs from the various ITDs to perform the evaluation and propose adequate choices. The detailed figures which were discussed informally are

attractive and show that the technologies under investigation are potentially promising.

The performance assessment process is shown in Figure 5.1.4. provided by Airbus. The Large Aircraft ITD takes into account all contributions from all relevant projects. The Panel notes some

inconsistencies in the calculation of environmental targets within ITDs and SESAR (e.g. SFWA

ITD presentation dated 10 April 2013 and Clean Sky Development plan version V2.01). The reader is referred to Recommendation R2.2.


Figure 5.1.4. Example of SFWA calculation of environmental targets.

ITD status at the end of May 2013.

SFWA is late and has encountered unexpected difficulties and potential cost overruns which have

led so far to several programme content and schedule redefinitions. The master schedule had to be

adapted and the objectives had to be reviewed and occasionally down-sized to allow some achievement within the Clean Sky time frame and to remain within the limits of the budget

allocation for Clean Sky. The figure 5.1.5 below shows delays of 32 months in some areas at the

level of the High Speed BLADE and CROR Flight Tests demonstrators. Figure 5.1.5 and 5.1.6

show that the others demonstrators - despite being late - are scheduled to deliver results before the termination of CS by the end of 2016.

At the time of the visit in Toulouse, the maturity of the action plan to achieve a set of objectives within the budget and the CS global schedule were improving. However it was not yet stabilised

and de-risked. The situation was improving in terms of stability, but remained somewhat “fluid”.

The probability of achieving a satisfying status of the technologies by the end of CS1, despite down-sizing, looks quite good. The CROR integration is probably the least advanced project of all:

the flight test of the CROR engine is not possible within CS1 for reasons due to the CROR engine

definition and schedule (see the SAGE assessment) and also due to SFWA and the un-anticipated difficulties for flight testing.


Figure 5.1.5. High-Speed Demonstrator Passive (BLADE) status May 2012 reported to be

delayed more than 2 months since Oct 2010 while CROR Flight Demo is shifted to CS2

(Source: presentation at the Toulouse site visit).

Figure 5.1.6: Major demonstrators planning (Source: presentation at the Toulouse site visit)

Recommendations:

The Panel regrets that, at the time the ITD content was defined back in 2006/7, the consequences of

flight tests were not taken into account with the proper involvement of the flight test experts. Some

risks were not correctly evaluated:

certification difficulties to flight test the technologies on safety critical functions of the flying

test beds;

risks during the flight tests and the potential associated brand image damages to AIRBUS were

not correctly assessed and induced a lot more work, schedule slippage and costs increases;

test equipment, tools and test methodologies and processes were underestimated due to the

scale of the innovation gap compared to the State of the Art practices.

As a consequence, time had to be spent on these topics creating delays and additional costs.


R-SFWA.1: The Panel recommends that flight tests should be taken into account at the very

beginning of the ITD. It is to be recognised as a necessary step, overlooked at the project launch

but very much needed to ensure project success.

The Panel assumes that competition related corporate games played by the engine manufacturers

compounded with lack of key resources on some critical work packages and due to priorities allocated to aircraft programmes might have led to unexpected and abrupt change of content in

some projects. The ITD had to adapt itself to this situation. Because the “downstream” research

addressed by CS is close to programme competition it is not surprising to have such situation.

Globally, the disruption was put under control despite the magnitude of the shock and the impact on the project.

Some partners were weaker than expected and the screening process to validate their participation taking into account their capabilities was not effective enough and led to schedule slippage

(particularly in the certification domain). This issue raises the question of an effective participant

screening and selection which should be discussed at the JU level.

Due to the size and complexity of the ITD, the complete bottom up evaluation of the ITD is a one

year long processes running Airbus project management methodologies. It was launched late

(2012) but it is the warranty of a better control and a better involvement of all contributing parties. It should have been carried out already in 2008 at the CS launch. This issue raises the question of

adequate programme management methodologies.

R-SFWA.2: For large ITDs, it is recommended to adopt systematically an industrial project

management methodology from the very beginning of the project.

The CS objective is to develop mature technologies ready for insertion in a programme. Airbus has recognised that a first task was to define with precision the meaning of the TRL maturity stages

because of domain specific characteristics in aerospace.

Involving EASA and FAA at this stage of developing breakthrough technologies was considered as

mandatory. The relationship is working well, enables a safe progress and will allow “light

certification” validated for flight tests. It has taken some time to bring all the parties together and to establish the working protocols.

R-SFWA.3: It is recommended to secure robust commitment from the participants to find ways to

prevent a lack of attention and of focus from the participating companies and to secure adequate resource allocation by all.

The level of commitment and the relevance of the resources allocation plans have to be checked and validated by the CSJU. It is not a development programme and it should not be managed the

same way. However, being close to development, the required resources are significant in terms of

size and in critical specialist domains.

The level of risk mid 2013 has not yet been reduced enough and the granularity issue is still too

high. More efforts are planned to reduce the size of the risks and to restrain any negative impact on

the schedule.

Some key partners have underestimated the level of risks of their packages, leading the overall

project to some difficulties.

R-SFWA.4: It is recommended at the pre-design phase level to run an assessment of risks on the

work package contents.


Clean Sky is a research programme with the associated risks. ITD leaders should not contemplate

to put an obligation of results on their partners as it is the case in any development programme.

However, due to the high TRL level of CS projects, significant resources are required in terms of competences. Some partners may consider CS as a low priority venture and allocate insufficient

resources causing delays and reduction of scope.

R-SFWA.5: The Panel recommends the JU to focus on minimising this potential risk, and to

entrust the GB the responsibility of motivating the potentially defaulting partners.

R-SFWA.6: Downstream research leading technologies to TRL6 maturity should achieve the following steps: performance readiness, engineering readiness, operational readiness (main

tenability, stability …), manufacturing readiness. The Panel believes this recommendation is

applicable to all large ITDs.

The main lesson learnt from SFWA is that research aiming at bringing technologies at TRL 6

should take into account complexities and difficulties very close to those encountered in development programmes. Moreover, because it is research there are risks. As remarked in a

presentation, “The more innovative, the more efficient is a new technology, the higher are the

potential value to the programme and the higher are the associated risks”.

CS is addressing TRL 6 technologies which can lead to significant performance improvement at

Aircraft level. Being subject to risks, these projects can encounter delays, reduction of scope or

even dead ends.

SFWA concluding statements:

The SFWA ITD can be considered as the reference for the Clean Sky ambitions. It is managing

some very critical technologies, potentially contributing to breakthrough performance

improvement for aircraft and to a step change in achieving ACARE’s goals. New tools, new

methodologies, new certification processes have been investigated and developed to allow

progress towards TRL6. The JU and its governance bodies should review with special attention

all the issues encountered during the past years in SFWA and draw all the lessons from this first

phase of Clean Sky in order to avoid any repetition in CS2. ITDs need to be flexible not only

technically but also in terms of budget.


5.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA)

The GRA Objectives

Green Regional Aircraft shall deliver low weight, using smart structures, as well as low external

noise configurations, and the integration of technology developed in other ITDs, such as engines,

energy management and new system architectures.

The GRA Structure and Research Programme

GRA addresses five technological domains, performed with well organised links with the relevant

ITDs of Clean Sky: Low Weight Configurations (GRA1), linked to ED-Design, Low Noise Configurations (GRA2), All Electric Aircraft (GRA3), linked to ED-Design and Systems for green

Operation (SGO), Mission & Trajectory Management (GRA4), linked to SGO and New

Configurations (GRA5), linked to TE and SAGE (Fig 5.2.1.).

Figure 5.2.1. The GRA programme, showing the main interfaces with other ITDs

GRA includes many industrial organisations, SME, Research Centres and Universities. In addition,

the involvement in the CfPs has been very significant with 163 winners and 16 Countries involved.

GRA Contribution to ACARE Goals

The overall objective of Clean Sky (CS) is to develop technologies, that would allow to fly

Aircrafts, including all aspects of the Industry, enabling to maintain present performance, while drastically reducing emissions and noise as compared to the standards of the year 2000.

The specific product contribution to Regional A/C Y2020 expected to be delivered was -40% CO2,

-60% NOX and -20% dB. CS has experienced difficulties to monitor the 2007 indicative targets.

These targets were not always consistent across the range of technologies. The product objectives were not clearly defined down to CS specific technologies. The CS Development Plan (CSDP)

provides a structured way to monitor and assess achievement of the environmental goals. Three

complementary measures are used. These are the maturity of technologies in terms of Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), the concept aircraft and demonstration programmes. The TRL monitors

the maturity of technologies within each ITD. The CS environmental benefits are measured by


comparing the existing aircraft (baseline reference Y2000 and Y2020) and a virtual concept aircraft

incorporating CS technologies as defined by the aircraft ITDs. The demonstration programmess

will allow to provide evidence of integration of several technologies and to determine the true potential benefit in a relevant operational environment.

A realistic selection for GRA was performed with resized ATR72-500 and Embraer E-190. The 90 Pax Turboprop and 130 Pax are adapted to Y2000 reference, and CS green aircraft concept 2020.

Aircraft models are prepared by GRA and provided to the Technology Evaluator (TE). The TE uses

the GRA aircraft model to perform the environmental forecast for CO2, NOX and noise at aircraft,

mission and ATS level.

The current objectives for GRA 90 Pax (passengers) and GRA130 Pax are respectively -25 to -30%

& -27% to -35% for CO2 & NOX. The noise objective for GRA 90 is -1 to -3.3 source noise reductions and -1 to -2 operational measure (for single operation with respect to Area %). The

noise objective for GRA 130 is -4 to -7 source noise reduction and -1 to -2 operational measure (for

single operation with respect to Area %).

RGRA-1 – CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in relation to CS objectives. The

Panel recommends a more transparent traceability between ACARE goals and CS specific

contribution.

Regarding the three complementary measures, the technical visit to Alenia provided concrete

evidence of TRL progress, environmental benefits related to the GRA aircraft and preparations towards demonstration. The Panel received evidence of a technology roadmap for each technology

of GRA, TRL gate reviews and TRL progress. At the beginning of the CS GRA programme, most

of the technologies started with TRL2-3; by 2013 TRL 4-5 have been achieved. This is considered

as good progress given the complexity of the technological challenges and the slow start of the overall CS.

Aircraft simulation models of the GRA ITD (GRASM) for the aircraft concept have been prepared

and delivered to the TE. The GRASM of Green 90 Pax and 130 Pax provide a solid basis for the preparation of reference aircraft and evaluation of the environmental benefits of the green concept

aircraft. Good interaction and technical reviews among partners have been performed to prepare

demonstration activities.

Agenda of the Meeting at Alenia in Pomigliano d’Arco 4th

-5th

July 2013

The Agenda of the Meeting, which took two solid days and involved several engineers of the

Alenia set up, including some from the other Alenia Factories (more than 20 engineering staff in total), is provided in the Annex. The meeting showed evidence for real commitment and priority

from the ITD leader and partners.

RGRA-2 – CS1 and CS2 related: The visit provided evidence of very good cooperation between

research development activities and flight test preparations. Detailed reviews have been conducted

including multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel in flight test. It is recommended to other ITDs to learn from the good GRA flight test preparations.

Although in the meeting the status of all five technology projects was presented and briefly

discussed, by far the major attention was given to Low Weight Structure and to a somewhat lesser extent All Electrical Aircraft, as agreed with Alenia representatives a the 2d meeting in Brussels

(10 April 2013).

Assessment on the Status of GRA ITD

1. Low Weight Structure (in the Workshop)


This technology is essentially based on using composites and no metal for the structure of the

aircraft (fuselage, cockpit, wings). The actual composition of the material has not been revealed,

because it is an Alenia - Industrial Partner Patent. It is black, probably made by fibre reinforced graphite (as for the re-entry protection of the nose of the space shuttle and for the first wall

structure of the JET Tokamak). The required thickness (variable for different part of the structure)

is build up by wrapping at 3 different angles (0° - 45° -90°) tapes of 0.1mm thick, typical 10 layers to reach the basis structure of 1mm thickness.

An extended set of well planned tests have been performed on this structural material, with panels

size over one meter side.

Some key tests were performed at the presence of the Panel members, namely: a. hail test (diameter up to 2.75 inc., velocity 30m/s, up to an energy of 86J ). No indentation

was noticed and ultrasonic test showed no damage to the internal structure;

b. a drop test was also performed, up to 30J of energy; even in this case no external or internal damage was noticed.

However this material exhibited a drawback: vibrations and therefore noise in the simulation of flying conditions. This problem was successfully solved by inserting a thin damping layer in the

middle of the structural material.

The structural panel requires reinforcements and this is achieved by inserting shaped stringers of

the same material (Fig 5.2.2).

Figure 5.2.2. Structural illustration of a section of the fuselage using the new composite material

The body of the aircraft (reference ATR72) is made up by the fuselage, the cockpit and the wing,

eventually all using the composite material briefly described above. The Panel visitors spent quite a considerable amount of time in the workshop, following the process of manufacturing the section

(5m long, 3.5m diameter) of the fuselage and of large section of the wings. Each section is ‘cured’

in an autoclave, where the stringers are pre-cured and assembled on the Panel concerned before the

structure in cured in the autoclave. The fuselage sections are then closed with two end structures (prepared with a curing process outside of the autoclave). The ‘closed’ fuselage section is then

pressure tested.

A panel of 5m length and 1.5m width is shaped to replace a standard Al section (Fig 5.2.3.). This modified ATR72 will then ready for ground (2014) and eventually for flying tests (September

2015).


Figure 5.2.3. The Panel in composite material, to replace an aluminium Panel of an ATR72 for

the flying tests planned by 2015

The Panel visitors could see sections of the wing Panels, where the thickness is built up with more than 10 layers, typically 26 layers. This is certainly required for the wing structure, however, no

flight tests, within GRA Clean Sky, are planned.

The expected advantages/benefits of using the composite approach should be the following:

Reduced Fuselage weight by 6%

Reduced recurring man-hours (for maintenance)

No corrosion

No scheduled Inspections

No fatigue

Extended service operation life

Marketing appeal, evolving technology…

From what has been seen, both in the presentations and mainly in the workshop tests and

manufacturing processes, the Panel believes that the GRA ITD should be able to achieve the benefits mentioned above. The table of Fig 5.2.4. clearly indicates the full scale demonstrator for

ground test and the planned Flight tests to be performed by the end of 2015, when GRA Clean Sky

(1) will come to an end.

Figure 5.2.4. Programme for the ground (2014) and flying tests (2015) for the new composite

structure for the body of GRA

Among the benefits it is important to stress the ‘No fatigue’, since fatigue is usually what limit the

life of any engineering device. Tests have been performed on relevant samples with a crack, up to

90.000 cycles without any evident damage (no crack propagation).

JTI CleanSky 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel

Visit to AleniaAermacchi (Pomigliano D’Arco - Naples)

Confidential

12

Fixed secondary structure Upper rail InstallationFixed secondary structure Upper rail Installation

Due to the disassembling of the crown panel, the existing fixed secondary

structure on the frame and stringer, between stringer 4 LH/RH, will be

removed. To reinstall them it is necessary to add new intercostals (see

following figures) and plate support in accordance to the new crown panel

configuration.


2. All Electrical Aircraft

In the context of Clean Sky an ‘all electrical aircraft’, is one in which all onboard systems are

operated by electricity, while the propulsion comes from internal combustion engines (bleed-less

type), that reduces significantly the fuel burn and consequently the emissions (CO2 and NOX). The AEA concept encompasses:

Bleed-less engines

Electrical environment control systems

No centralized hydraulic system

Electrical wing ice protection system

Electrical actuator for flight control and landing gear systems

High power, high speed electrical generation

High voltage DC electrical distribution

Electrical energy start

The expected benefits of the AEA concept include:

Improved engine performance

Mass reduction (due to the elimination of hydraulic bleed systems)

Improved on board systems utilization

Improved reliability

Reduced maintenance

However the designers should consider the increase of mass and size of the electrical equipment,

which could be the main drawback of an AEA.

In the past there have already been hybrid conventional and electrical systems such ad POA (Power Optimized Aircraft) and MOET (More Open Electrical Aircraft), facing already the problem of

weight, but now the challenge is to eliminate completely any non electrical power and energy

supply.

Figure 5.2.5. Activities concerning a GRA - all electrical aircraft (AEA) concept major affected

on-board systems


The design of an AEA should be performed according to the following guidelines:

Simplification of the architecture

Multi-purpose power electronics motor controller

Higher power to weight ratio for power electronics

Reduction of electrical load analysis budget at the aircraft level

High power distribution centre integration

Smart management of generators overload capability

While the AEA benefits have been basically demonstrated for large aircrafts, this is not the case for Regional Aircrafts, and this is the present goal of Alenia and Partners. The on board systems

involved are synthetically described in Fig 5.2.5.

The Electrical Power Generation and the Distribution System (EPGDS) design has been completed

and manufacture of components is well advanced. The reference aircraft is a GRA 90pax, with two

propeller engines: two electrical motors/per engine (110 Kw/generator), are installed, providing

redundancy in emergency. Power distribution is at 270 VDC (Fig 5.2.6.). The main drawback using AEA for GRA is the weight (weight of EPDGDS is 430Kg for a 400 litres volume). A mode of

operation is been optimised, by allowing to reduce the power supplied to some selected loads,

when an overloading is requested elsewhere. However activities are still on at the THALES member to design an integrated generator which should allow to reach a 40% reduction in weight

(by working on the DC network, by reducing the speed ratio, by limiting the overload capability

and by using new magnetic materials).

FUTURE A/C CONFIGURATION (AEA 90-PAX TP)EPGDS architecture

AEA EPGDS architecture proposal for Future Green Regional Aircraft:

5

JTI Clean Sky 22ndnd Interim Evaluation Panel Interim Evaluation Panel -- Visit to Alenia Aermacchi (Pomigliano D’Arco Visit to Alenia Aermacchi (Pomigliano D’Arco -- Naples)Naples)Confidential

Figure 5.2.6. The EPGDS architecture for AEA 90-Pax TP configuration

The Electric-Environmental Control System (E-ECS) is the most demanding user of power in the

AEA configuration, because the suppression of conventional air sources supply implies the need of an electrically-driven air source. The results of architectural studies leads to an optimum scheme,

because it requires slightly more power installation (100 KW), but has a lower weight (512 Kg). E-

ECS ground and flying tests, will verify system behaviour in different operating conditions.

The Hybrid-Wing Ice Protection System (H-WIPS) has been studied for the ATR 90-pax wing

profile chooses a hybrid solution in order to reduce the electrical power demand. However a fully

electrothermal architecture is also under study, but the resulting high weight and large volume led


to abandon this approach and no further activities are planned for Clean Sky GRA at present.

However, ways to improve the efficiency of the de-icing method are still on going activities.

Flight Control Systems-Electro-Mechanical Actuators (FCS-EMA), new technologies to overcome

weight and reliability problems are now considered, by using brushless motors, more robust

electronics and new anti-jamming systems. These activities will be performed by a partner (CESA) selected through a Call for Proposal, who will develop also an anti-jamming system for EMA.

Electro-Mechanical Actuator for main Landing Gear (EMA-LG)

Electro-Mechanical actuation for LG extension-retraction is under evaluation in several research programmes.

The electro-mechanical braking for LG is currently in use on flying aircraft, such B787,

Bombardier, etc. Alenia is considering the Main Landing Gear (MLG) actuator for the Regional Aircrafts in the

framework of the Clean Sky initiative, aiming to bring the technology to TRL 5. For this purpose, a

CfP was launched in 2011 for the design, manufacturing and testing of an EMA, capable of operating the MLG of the reference Turbo-Prop Regional A/C (the project is named ARMLIGHT).

Main features of the project are: single DC brushless motor, anti-jamming system, no weight

increase as compared with the current systems, higher reliability and lower maintenance needs.

Ground and flying tests, for the electrical integration only, are planned in 2014-2015. No further information was provided/ requested during the meeting.

3. Other significant activities 3.1. LW/AEA Technologies to assess environmental impact

GRASM Activities validation

The success of Clean Sky will be eventually measured on the ‘numbers’ of the key parameters

defining the environmental impact of the new generation of A/C, designed and manufactured using the new technologies developed by the Clean Sky ITDs.

It is therefore of great interest the environmental impact studies performed by Alenia on the

evaluation of the reduction of CO2, NOX (fuel consumption) and noise level on GRA Green Y2020 A/C. This is even more interesting because TE ITD performed the same exercise (not only for

GRA) obtaining similar results, with the methods of analysis appropriate to TE, but with the input

of models proposed by GRA.

The Panel considers this approach as a good validation rather than double work as this validation

has been carried out by independent teams.

In fact the objectives of GRA Simulation Models (GRASM) are to:

Provide TE with effective tools to perform the Clean Sky assessment relevant for the

environmental impact (noise and emission) at Mission level, at Airport level and at the

Global level (i.e. on the evaluation of global fleet operation),

Complement internal GRA analyses: preliminary design assessment, trade-off between

configurations, design low noise take off and approach trajectory paths,

Provide validated Trajectory Path (TP) model to perform optimised trajectory and

optimisation studies.

Assessment of AEA/LW technologies at the A/C level

In order to highlight the improvement of performance towards the ACARE objectives, concerning

GRA, a comparison has been made between a Reference Turboprop A/C configuration with 2000

Year Technology (ATR72-500 – 95 pax) and a GRA – Green Turboprop A/C configuration (2020 Year Technology – 95 pax).

The 2020 Year Technology, include the outcome of the development of the GRA – ITD, namely:

Low Weight domain activities (composite material for the structure, load alleviation, etc) and All Electrical Aircraft domain activities (EPGDS, ECS, ICE Protection, Wire architecture, etc).


The Table of Fig 5.2.7. show the results of the comparison of fuel consumption (CO2 and NOX

abatement), which reveal a saving of 24% in fuel consumption, close to the target values (25-30%).

The improvement concerning noise reduction is expressed in the reduction of the impact area: 50% at take-off and 25% at approach (Fig 5.2.8.), have to be considered a very good achievement. Near

future work in this area will include a sensitivity analysis, to highlight the more beneficial

technologies.

Figure 5.2.7. Main results of the evaluation, using the Alenia GRASM, of the weight and

emission reduction using the new technologies

The GRA models (GRASMs) have been provided to the Technology Evaluator (TE) and similar

preliminary results have been obtained (see TE – ITD assessment).

Figure 5.2.8. Main results for the noise reduction evaluation, using the model above

3.2. Low Noise Configuration

Low Noise Configuration activities refer to design/modelling and technology maturation for a

Regional Aircraft 130-seats, a Regional Aircraft 90-seats and a Low Noise Landing Gear. These imply computational studies and experimental activities, including Advanced Aerodynamics, Aero-

elasticity, Aero-Structures and Systems. Mainstream Technologies relate to Wing Optimisation

Aerodynamics, Load Control, Load Alleviation, Low Noise High-Lift Devices and Low-Noise landing Gear. Technical solutions involve Natural Laminar Flow, Active control of wing movables,

Wing Aeroelastic Tailoring, etc.


Tests are planned during 2015, just at the end of GRA Clean Sky activities: no flying tests are

considered, only Wind Tunnel tests. Most of the computer design work has been done on the

wings, aiming at obtaining natural laminar flow. An aerolastic finite element model has been studied. The wings are fitted with a morphing flap. Mechanical prototypes have been designed,

manufactured and tested, showing their functionality in matching the target shape, while

withstanding simulated aerodynamics loads. Two prototypes were shown to us during the visit to the workshops, one mechanically operated and the other operated electrically. A CAD model of the

130-seat A/C is shown in Fig 5.2.9. A model for gust load alleviation has been produced by

Politecnico of Turin. The structural material of the aircraft is of composite structures, similar to the

ones briefly described in the Low Weight section of this Report. A similar analysis has been performed for the Green Regional 90-seats A/C.

Figure 5.2.9. CAD Model & CFD Pressure distribution at high-lift condition

A detailed structural/mechanical CAD model has been constructed to study the optimum configuration for a Low Noise Landing Gear, Main LG and Nose Landing Gear. Following the

computer studies to evaluate the sources on noise, two models (in ‘ALLEGRA’ and ‘ARTIC’

Projects by CfP) will be constructed and tested in two independent Wind Tunnels, respectively in the Pininfarina WT and in the DNW-LLF WT. The testing facility will be equipped with sensors to

measure the noise in various locations and in a number of operational positions of the LG. Final

tests are planned to be completed, as for most of the GRA ground and flying tests, for selected solutions before the end of GRA Clean Sky activities, i.e. within 2015 (ref. 2012 CSDP).

3.3. Mission and Trajectory Management

The aim of the Mission and Trajectory Management (MTM) is to study, in coordination with SGO (System for Green Operation) avionics solutions enabling the Aircraft to reduce its environmental

impact. However no flight tests are considered, but only tests with the GRA Flight Simulator.

The institutions involved are Thales Avionics, University of Bologna, CIRA and ELSIS. The main interfaces are with SGO, in the various phases of the project development. The main commitment

of GRA is to develop Green FMS (Flight Management System), while SGO should care about the

down selection and the functional requirement definition of the Green FMS. The green functions are: Green Cost Index (release 8/2012), for the optimization of the cruise

speed, Optimum Flight Level Selection, to provide the best cruise altitude (release 5/2013),

Continuous Descent Path, in order to reduce CO2 emissions and Noise level (expected release

12/2013). The aim of the GRA Flight Simulator is to assess in real time/pilot in the loop environment the

benefit of the green functions.

Two configurations were foreseen: a) basic configuration (ATR), completed in May 2012, b) upgrade configuration (GRA TP90 pax) to be completed by 12/2013.

Two flights from Venice to Napoli have already been performed (ATR72), with the aim to verify

the GCI cruise speed function.


The final assessment will start next year (by using a Flight Simulator modified for GRA TP90 pax).

The final release of Green FMS will contain the following functions: GCI for optimum cruise

speed, OFL, for optimum cruise altitude, CDA, for optimum descent path. Benefits are expected in terms of CO2, while NOX reduction benefits are expected by the engine performance. Finally, only

limited benefits are expected from the perceived noise, because descent optimisation is at high

altitude (3000-5000 feet).

GRA concluding statements:

The GRA ITD has a comprehensive task, dealing with the Aircraft Body (with the exclusion of

the engine), All Electrical Aircraft Devices, Mission and Trajectory Management, and finally

with the evaluation of the benefits for the environment as defined by ACARE. The Panel was

pleased to see concrete evidence of progress in innovative technology developments, concrete

contribution towards ACARE targets and to note that in the environmental assessment

performed at this stage of GRA development, both GRA ITD and TE show similar quantitative

results.

The key issue is the reduction of weight by using composite materials. The R&D on new

structure design and composite materials is supported by a wide range of laboratory tests; full

scale ground demonstrators are planned to be concluded with a variety of flying tests within

2015. Flying tests require extensive preparation in terms of new technology and its suitability for

an existing regional aircraft. An important aspect addressed in an appropriate manner by GRA

is the combination of experienced production and R&D personnel involved in detailed planning

and appropriate reviews for preparation of demonstration activities.

The two days visit to the Alenia premises was instrumental to convince the Panel, that the GRA

ITD will be completed on time, with more than satisfactory results.


5.3 Green RotorCraft (GRC)

The GRC Objectives

GRC focuses on the integration of technologies and demonstration of rotorcraft platforms

(helicopters and tilt-rotor aircrafts) to drastically reduce emissions and noise while maintaining present performance.

The GRC Structure and Research Programme

The Programme combines seven technology subprogrammes and one management package, namely:

GRC0 - ITD Management

GRC1 - Innovative rotor blades

GRC2 - Reduced drag of airframe & dynamic systems

GRC3 - Integration of innovative electrical systems

GRC4 - Installation of a Diesel engine on a light helicopter

GRC5 - Environment-friendly flight paths

GRC6 – Eco-Design Demonstrators (Rotorcraft)

GRC7 - Technology Evaluator for Rotorcraft (interface & preparation)

A strong point of this ITD is the apparent strong link with other ITDs and the inclusion within GRC

of specific sub-programmes linked to other ITD’s (GRC5, 6, and 7):

SAGE

o Agreement with SAGE 5 for sharing new turboshaft characteristics (GRC5) o Involvement of SAGE 5 in GRC7 / TE

SGO

o Link with Aircraft Energy (MAE) for HEMAS and for starter generators (GRC3)

o Link with MTM for Rotorcraft specific trajectories and missions (GRC5) o Models for GRC3 Architecture studies

o Electromechanical Main Rotor Actuator (GRC3)

Eco Design

o with EDA for LCA and technologies (GRC6) o Interface with EDS for electrical test bench adaptation of rotorcraft requirements

(GRC3)

o To highlight weight impact resulting from their research for incorporation into GRC7

conceptual rotorcraft

Technology Evaluator (GRC7)

o Benefit assessment on the SEL (Single Engine Light) & TEL (Twin Engine Light)

model helicopter accomplished and delivered to TE June 2012

o Team work with GRC4 completed. Diesel Engine Light platform deliverable Q4/2013 o Input for CleanSky reference rotorcraft for LCA to be defined (GRC6)

GRC Contribution to ACARE Goals

The environmental objectives derived from the ACARE objective and specific to the GRC ITD are

the following:

Turboshaft engine Diesel piston engine

CO2 -25% -40%

NOX -60% -50%

Noise -10 EPNdB or -50%


These are average figures based on the individual gains expected for each platform (light

helicopters with single or twin engines, medium or heavy helicopters, tilt-rotor or Diesel). As of today, the evaluation carried out within GRC7 and TE confirms those objectives. In

particular, for the single engine light helicopter (SEL), the evaluation shows a reduction of 30% for

CO2 and 47% for noise compared to the targets of -25% CO2 and -50% noise respectively, thanks to the new technologies developed within GRC. However, the evaluation of NOx reduction is not yet

available.

This evaluation will be complemented by the evaluation of the other helicopter models in order to obtain an average result for all helicopter categories considered within CS. Still, it has to be noted

that the two helicopter models evaluated so far represent about 65% of the forecasted world fleet in

2020. This gives hope that GRC will attain its environmental objectives at project completion.

The Panel considers this a very positive achievement. However, the evaluation of the

environmental objectives in terms of NOx, CO2 and noise are often based on a number of assumptions which are sometimes unclear or not sufficiently justified, and the final numbers

sometimes lack consistency.

R-GRC.1: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to provide more clarity and consistency in the figures presented as well as on the assumptions taken for the evaluation of the

environmental targets in relation with the ACARE goals.

Assessment on the Status of the GRC ITD

The present assessment is based on a number of documents received from the European

Commission and a number of meetings. No technical visits or attendance to review meetings were

scheduled for this ITD.

During the meeting of April 10, a short presentation of about ten slides covered the main aspects

like master schedule, budget, technical progress, risk status, management and impact assessment. It is clear that the ITD is well run at overall level. IPR and confidentiality as well as interaction with

other ITDs seem to be adequately addressed.

There is a delay of +/- 12 months in GRC 1/2/3; the others ones are on track, but no impact is

expected on completion of targets. Although there has been substantial technical progress, the

project tends to shift to the right. The budget is late in spending, and there is a discrepancy with

regard to the forecasted spending in general. However, the objectiveness of the risk assessment has to be noted. Statistics were presented about the CfP’s, but there has been little detailed information

about the topics.

The Panel emphasizes the need to increase momentum, prioritizing work, proceed with planning,

cope with problems of resources and to ensure available resources. However these issues could not

be assessed in sufficient detail (from a 90 min presentation during the meeting on April 10). The Panel recognises the added value of technical visits or technical presentation meetings which would

have given more insight (see R-4.1), some annual technical review reports are less positive

As requested by the Panel, additional material was provided by the Project Officer. A summary slide was provided with the link with other previous European projects. It is positive that GRC

builds on and integrates results from previous Framework Programme projects (mainly on FP6

OPTIMAL, GOAHEAD, NICETRIP, etc), but it is noted that delay on deliveries from FRIENDCOPTER has had a negative impact.


R-GRC.3 - Lessons learnt for CS2: The link with previous or ongoing Framework Programmes

should be clearly stated in order to avoid overlap and possible double funding. This

recommendation is valid for all ITDs.

As requested by the Panel, the deliverables for two chosen sub-projects (GRC 1 - Gurney Flaps and

GRC4 - Diesel Engine) were provided but only for Gurney Flaps (2 of light content) and not for

Diesel Engine because all deliverables are confidential.

Some changes in the initial workplan occured and since 2010 the following actions have been

implemented:

o Alignment of technologies towards market opportunities, as per anticipated to date

o Shaping activities to clarify both outcomes with respect to Clean Sky objectives and to implement system-analysis approach, and an improved maturity of results (GRC5 for

instance)

o Clarification of interfaces between GRC and other ITDs (mainly Eco-Design) o Implementation of good practices described in the CSMM (TRL maturity assessment

for instance)

The overall technical progress was presented in 2 slides of general overview and the active Gurney

flaps (GRC1) and the Diesel engine (GRC4) were presented as the two “flagships” of this ITD. The

Panel member appreciated the fact that an additional 50 slides (not presented during the meeting

but of pure technical content) were provided as additional material to the general presentation.

Good work has been done in preparing presentations and a strong involvement of the Project

Officer was noted. A clear comparison was presented between previous planning and current planning and reviewers´ comments from the last meeting were discussed. However, there is a need

for more consistency in the figures presented in relation to target reductions. (see R-GRC.1)

GRC1 - Rotor blades

Design activities are continuing for model and full scale demonstrator blades with Active Gurney

Flaps. The CDR for 2D wind tunnel test of AGF was passed in February 2013. The PDR for model

scale AGF actuation system was held in January. A new CfP was launched to select partners to support CFD modelling of AGF and analysis of test results.

An overall delay of 12 months is quoted to be without any impact on completion. Major changes

are under review to increase the maturity at completion and to recover delays: in particular for

Active Gurney Flaps: inclusion of flight tests to increase maturity from 5 to 6, and budget increase

by transfer of budget from activities with low maturity target (laminar cover blades for instance and

Active blade devices based on Piezoelectric).

GRC2 - Drag reduction

The second wind tunnel testing campaign has been conducted for the 1/5 scale EC135 wind tunnel

model (ADHeRo) featuring optimised landing skids. The final wind tunnel test campaign at ONERA for active devices (synthetic and pulsed jets) on aft fuselage confirmed drag reduction up

to 36% and almost reached TRL 4. The optimisation of the Tilt-Rotor sponsons and landing gear

were successfully achieved. The kick-off of the CfP project ROD (PoliMi) for wind tunnel tests on

the common H/C platform was held at the end of February 2013. The design and manufacturing is completed for the remotely controlled movable horizontal stabiliser for the GOAHEAD model.

Instrumentation and calibration have started.

GRC3 - Electrical Systems


The concept configuration in terms of mass and electrical data has been supplied to GR7.

Technology progress has been demonstrated by formal design reviews in several areas: PDR closed

for EMA for Flight Control, EMA for Rotor Brake, Electrical Conventional Tail Rotor, and Starter Generator; PDR closure pending on Piezo Power Supply; and CDR closed for EMA for Landing

Gear. Definitions and test plans supplied for equipments on the ETB.

GRC4 - Diesel Engine

The partner consortium has been selected in 2010 (highest project in value: 9,3 M€) and the kick-

off took place in 2011. On the optimal helicopter, the engine definition is almost finished (end of

March 2013) and the helicopter architecture activities will continue in 2013. On the demonstrator

helicopter, engine tests have started end of February 2013, and iron bird preparation is on-going, tests scheduled to start in September 2013.

GRC5- Flight Path

A thorough review took place in 2012, leading to a complete change of the WBS to make an efficient use of resources, and align activities towards CS targets (mainly in terms of visibility and

understanding).

On the technical side, the H/C procedure optimization activities are on track, the T/R performance during operations has been shared with TRAVEL partner, the low noise path optimizer has been

validated (TRL4), the first low-pollutant tilt-rotor missions have been computed (estimated 7%

CO2 reduction), preliminary in-flight tests of “tunnel-in-the-sky” display have been performed, and

finally, ground tests of pollutant measurement system achieved with MAEMRO and EMICOPTER.

GRC6 - Eco Design

The final design and manufacturing concept of the thermoplastic composite structure is on-going

until mid 2013 but processes have to be adapted while tooling design and tooling manufacturing are to be started in the second half of 2013. Suppliers and joining process have been selected for

the thermoplastic tail-cone. The tooling design has been finalized and the manufacturing has started

beginning of 2013. Regarding the Tail Gearbox, the Zn-Ni coating of parts is finished since April

2013 and the manufacturing of Mg parts since June 2013. For the intermediate gearbox, the parts manufacturing and data collection is in progress and the supplier for TPC-shaft has been selected.

GRC7 Techno Evaluator

There is evidence of significant efforts to feed TE with the right inputs, and of mitigation of technical difficulties by reducing the number of deliveries and focusing on the most representative

models (SEL for instance).

Work is completed for the PhoeniX platform v3.1 and the Twin Engine Heavy (TEH) is ready for delivery to the TE ITD. Work has commenced on the PhoeniX platform v4.1 – Twin Engine

Medium (TEM-B). Both platforms include engine models from SAGE5 by Turbomeca and the

benefits of GRC 6 – Eco Design Demonstrators are to be incorporated as well. Finally, TE’s second

assessment for GRC is completed.

GRC concluding statements:

GRC focuses on the integration of technologies and demonstration of rotorcraft platforms

(helicopters and tilt-rotor aircrafts) to drastically reduce emissions and noise while maintaining

present performance. The Active Gurney flaps and the Diesel Engine were presented as the two

“flagships” of this ITD.


Regarding the achievement of the ACARE goals, as of today, the evaluation carried out within

GRC7 and TE confirms those objectives. In particular, for the single engine light helicopter

(SEL), the evaluation shows a reduction of 30% for CO2 and 47% for noise compared to the

targets of -25% CO2 and -50% noise respectively, thanks to the new technologies developed

within GRC. The Panel considers this a very positive achievement. However, the evaluation of

NOx reduction is not yet available and the evaluation still has to be complemented by the

evaluation of the other helicopter models in order to obtain an average result for all helicopter

categories considered within CS.

The work plan shows delays in some areas but no impact is expected on completion of targets as

appropriate mitigation plans have been put in place. It is clear that the ITD is well run at overall

level. Some of the ground tests have been completed already and the ambition of GRC is to

include flight tests as well towards the end of the programme to achieve a nominal TRL6 level.


5.4 Systems for Green Operations (SGO)

Overall developments

SGO focuses on developments in two independent pillars: the Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE) and the Management of Trajectory and Mission (MTM). Firstly, MAE supports the

development of all-electric equipment system architectures. This allows a more fuel-efficient use of

secondary power. Secondly MAE investigates the generation of electrical energy and its distribution to electrical aircraft systems. MTM aims at developing technologies to reduce

emissions and noise addressing the way aircraft manage its trajectory either in flight or ground.

SGO had a slow start and strategic re-planning was performed in 2010. The initial plan was considered aggressive and with a lower technological maturity than originally expected. There is an

overall delay of 12 months with no impact in the final CS completion date. The Panel agrees with

the remarks from technical reviews about activities being shifted towards the end of the CS project

with consequent fewer margins in the schedule. It is appreciated that measures and priority is given to developments related to the main demonstration.

R-SGO.1: – CS1 related: The Panel recommends carefully monitoring and implementing and early

warning mechanism to critical activities, success factors of SGO.

R-SGO.2: – lesson learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends that administrative and project

management procedures are set-up before the start of technical work.

The Grant Agreement for Members (GAM, 2013) highlights that technical content has been adapted and it is below the initial ambitious expectations. Changes and adaptations have been

related to address technological setbacks, cancellation of technologies, introduction of new

technologies from on going technological developments, reduction of TRL scope, delays in test rig

building, Intellectual Property Rights issues and withdrawal of some partners. Decision-making needs to consider trade-offs between most promising technologies, its industrial applicability,

schedule and SGO budget. There are activities that have been deleted in the updated GAM, the

rational and consequences are not justified with sufficient detail.

R-SGO.3: – lesson learnt for CS2: The traceability and evolutions on GAM should be better

documented to establish and assess its overall compliance and performance. Traceability should

track changes and their impact. This action enhances the ability of the programme to adapt to new

challenges and opportunities.

The SGO programme has two cycles of validation and maturation of technologies and sub-

architectures were planned. The first cycle is for demonstrations of sufficiently mature

technologies. The second cycle is dedicated to demonstration of technologies investigated within CS. Demonstrations for mature technologies include large scale ground hardware tests rigs and

flight tests.

Recognised stakeholders of the domain are involved in the ITD: Airframers, system suppliers and research organisations. A total budget of approx. 300M€ is allocated to this ITD and a significant

part has been allocated to partners about 25%. In the period SGO made available 2.5m EURO to

the JU. By 2013, 78% of the budget has been consumed which is considered average in comparison

to other ITDs.

As a transversal ITD, SGO has direct and indirect interfaces with GRA, GRC, SFWA, TE as well

as SESAR. Specific reviews have been performed together with SESAR to identify potential

overlaps in the themes related to flight management. Deficiencies in receiving documentation from SESAR have been identified. Important interfaces are reported to the general board and trans-ITD

workshops on common themes are organized. The interfaces are considered as being managed in

an adequate manner.

R-SGO.4 – lesson learnt for CS2: Many interdependencies are seen among ITDs and with other national and EC activities. The Panel recommends incorporating current interface management

practices into a specific interface management function. Moreover, formal exchange of information


should be established among the CS, SESAR and other research programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020).

Implementing this recommendation would speed up research work and avoid of potential

duplication of work.

Most of the work packages have been active in the review period; some technical achievements and

challenges include:

Aircraft solutions and definitions (WP1) completed the validation and verification master plan.

A good TRL roadmap has been prepared. It is remarked that the TRL approach has been demanding and more complex than initially expected. The Panel appreciates a SGO efforts and

positive link currently established with SESAR.

In the Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE, WP2) equipment is under final preparation

and/or delivered for demonstrator testing. For example a prototype of the skin heat exchanger

is under final preparation. Design of the electrical power distribution centre has been completed and manufacturing was launched. Tests campaigns and assessments include icing

tunnel tests, TRL gate reviews, critical design reviews. Examples of these developments were

presented during the technical visit.

The Mission and Trajectory Management (MTM, WP3) progress includes advance versions of

multidisciplinary optimization framework GATAC (Green Aircraft Trajectories under ATM

constrains) and developments of Flight Management green functions. GATAC facilitates multi-

objectives optimization and minimization of conflicting objectives e.g. fuel burn vs. flight time and NOX. This software supports theoretical identification of trajectories with minimum

environmental impact. The review of documentation showed that GATAC has passed TRL 4.

However, the capabilities have been delivered late, future GATAC refinements are expected

within CS. The FMS functions passed TRL 3 and delays are reported for TRL 5 and 6.

Large-scale demonstration (WP4) consists of ground and flight demonstration activities.

Evidence of progress towards demonstration has been provided. The technical visits provided

evidence of progress related to the electrical ground tests, definition of scenarios for pilot in the

loop interactions for demonstration of the green functions.

Aircraft assessment and exploitation (WP5) started by the end of 2011. After a slow start, it is

remarked that 2012 has been used establishing a private collaborative web-site, agreement on

targeted benefits and on criteria for appropriate technology selection. A mix of criteria is

applied e.g. TRL maturity, manufacturing readiness level, avoidance of confidentiality issues, high impact in terms of certification, standardization and certification. It is remarked that

environmental benefits are not among the criteria identified in the documentation provided to

the Panel.

SGO contribution to ACARE goals

The SGO ITD contributes to the ACARE 2020 targets by improvements in energy and mission

management, new trajectories and system reduction and improved on-ground operations. ACARE

targets have been decomposed to specific SGO objectives in terms of fuel burn saving and noise improvements. These reductions are calculated per flight phase and per mission. The expected

contribution from SGO is a -5 to -9% CO2 reduction, -2 to -5dB (approach and landing) and -2 to -

3dB (take-off and climb) noise improvements (GAM 2013 only mentions large a/c). MAE targets -

2% fuel burn saving for large aircraft while MTM overall targets -3 to -6 CO2 reduction and -2 to -5 dB. SGO contributions are expressed per flight phases e.g. climb, cruise optimisations, take-off

reductions.

The CS objectives are broken down into individual objectives for each technology. The direct contribution of SGO to improve the environment can be expressed in terms of weight savings,

energy efficiency, suppression of hydraulic fluids and other. Some contributions are expressed in a

qualitative manner e.g. weight benefit. SGO developments are delivered and integrated in vehicle ITDs. Then, SGO environmental CO2 and noise benefits can only be validated at aircraft level. It is

difficult to track down the environmental benefits down to specific technology. Environmental

improvements are calculated at aircraft, mission and global level. It is difficult to associated single

technologies contribution. Good evidence is provided on contribution to environmental targets in


line with the technical progress. The documentation provides evidence that some technologies

seem to require significant effort in development and appear to contribute to a limited extent to CS

environmental targets. R-SGO.5 – lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to include metrics such as weight saving, energy efficiency, maintenance environmental impacts (e.g. reduction of hydraulic fluids)

and expected efforts to maturation and manufacturing individually per technology to assess the

benefit for CS1 and potential candidate for CS2.

R-SGO.6: SGO benefits are expressed per flight phase. It makes difficult a comparison across

ITDs regarding the most promising technologies. Therefore, the Panel agrees with technical

reviews about alignment of SGO environmental benefits metrics to other ITDs.

A clear dashboard presenting Technology Readiness Level (TRL) advances and roadmap was presented for specific technologies. This dashboard is used to monitor the technology maturity.

Good evidence is provided of maturation of technologies e.g. ice protection systems and

environmental control systems from TRL3 to TRL4. Example of validation exercises were presented e.g. icing tunnel test. Flight management functions developed in MTM present progress

towards TRL4.

The developments and progress presented have a strong focus on technological developments and

less attention is given to the interaction with other key stakeholders outside SGO and certification,

which is essential to achieve the desired environmental improvements. More involvement of end-

users, consequences of technology acquisition, operation, maintenance and costs is needed.

R-SGO.7 – CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel recommends a thorough preparation for the

transition to the new developments proposed by Clean Sky. The compatibility of CS with end users

expectations needs to be addressed.

SGO technical visit – progress evidence

The technical visit provided evidence of hardware and software developments and progress

towards demonstration related to the Airbus PROVEN, Liebherr GETI test benches and Thales

AIRLAB simulator. PROVEN test bench will be used to test power distribution and electrical load management. The GETI test platform can be adapted to represent and simulate different aircraft

and to analyse performance in terms of electrical and thermal loads. The AIRLAB simulator is used

to test flight management functions for different flight phases. Other test benches are planned within SGO e.g. AVANT test facility.

R-SGO.8: Demonstration activities for some equipment are foreseen in a single test platform. Back-up plans in case of delays in the test platform need to be addressed.

Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE) presentation reflects utilization of results from previous

EC projects such as More Open Electrical Technology (MOET, FP6) and Power Optimized Aircraft (POA, FP5). The ITD further mature and develops additional technology and

improvements e.g. the overall system weights from MOET have been reduced. Evidence is

provided about the validation and evaluation activities. These activities will be performed through ground physical or virtual testing rigs or flight-testing. The demonstration starts when the

technology reaches certain maturity.

The MAE technologies include electrical equipment, thermal management equipment and load

management functions. The MTM includes green flight management system, robustness to weather

and electrical taxiing.

SGO targets a high number of technologies and associated tools (about 35 to 40 technologies) and

several demonstration campaigns. Critical paths for each demonstration are periodically reviewed

and potential risks are identified and managed in an appropriate manner. The planned electrical Flight Test Demonstrator (eFTD) was presented as shown in figure 5.4.1.below. This eFTD will


enable test of wing ice protection electro-thermal or electromechanical with their associated ice

detection system driven by electrical compressors.

Figure 5.4.1. Example of electrical Flight Demonstrator

The visit to PROVEN test bench provides concrete evidence of developments towards the ground

demonstration. PROVEN as illustrated on Figure 5.4.2. below is an open full scale electrical test

bench. PROVEN will be used to test e.g. electrical networks with high voltage and power convertors.

The technical visit to the test rig PROVEN provided evidence of how the electrical equipment will be tested in different electrical configuration. This test bench is dedicated to research projects, but

it is possible to adapt its level of representativeness. The control room will be used to monitor

status, power centre distribution site, the electrical drive to simulate a generator, programmable

loads to simulate the aircraft configuration in various flight phases, integrate some equipment representative from ECS. It is possible to see how the tests are foreseen. There are possibilities to

record test and to analyse problems. Ground tests for electrical technologies such as starter

generator and electrical power distribution.

15

WP4 – Ground Demonstration: Test Rig PROVEN

PROVEN is an open and modular full scale Electrical test bench, which allows to

integrate various electrical equipment's in various network configurations.

Electrical networks with high voltage DC bus bars, generation channels and

power converters will be tested at Airbus Toulouse.

Actuators

Mobile Loads

Control room

Electrical drives Programmable loads

Power centres

Actual loads

Figure 5.4.2. PROVEN large electrical test bench

The AirLab is a technical operational laboratory. This simulation environment within Thales to validate Flight Management Functions (FMS) green functions was presented to the Panel. A

demonstration of specific green functions at different flight phases was provided. The functional


concept for optimization of the Noise Abatement Departure Procedure (NADP) with Multi-Criteria

Departure Procedure for take-off was explained. The Panel was informed that this functionality has

been implemented in the flight management and could see how the “ED” functionality works in the mock-up in the AirLab for specific flight phases, e.g. initial climb.

The Adaptive Increased Glideslope is another FMS functionality presented to the Panel. This

functionality is seen as complementary to the Continuous Descent Approach (CDA). CDA is addressed by SESAR; during the technical visit the Panel was informed that technical review with

SESAR has been performed to ensure alignment between CS and SESAR developments. The

airlines will be able to select a function optimised in terms of reduction of noise and fuel burn. An

example of acoustic assessments for approach at Charles de Gaulle airport was presented to the Panel. The Panel was informed that Airbus pilots have been involved in the TRL3 assessment in

the AirLab experimentations. All flight management functions have passed TRL3. The

development and validation of FMS function required external realistic inputs such as weather information. A weather data repository and weather simulation engine provided by the SIMET CfP

is currently linked to the FMS. SIMET includes worldwide weather data for the 2007-2009 period

(analysis and forecast), graphical interface and simulation capabilities (see Figure 5.4.3.).

Fuel

Noise

NOx

Contrails

CO2

Cruise T/O Climb Descent Approach

Green

departure

Green

cruise

A-IGS

Preamble Scope

Cockpit Implementation

Cockpit Implementation

AI GS Control

Panel

Concept defined by Airbus and implemented in Airlab

Airlab experimentations o HMI tested on fixed base simulator (Airlab)

o Standard A321 autopilot used

o Simulated MMR

o Airbus flight test crew in nominal operation

Acceptance of the A-IGS concept

First benefits evaluation

Figure 5.4.3. Advanced Increased Glideslope (A-IGS) and FMS green function

The visit to Liebherr Aerospace enabled the members of the Panel to discuss and see MAE developments related to the Electrical Environmental Control Systems (E-ECS), the Wing Ice

Protection Systems (WIPS), Cooling technologies and Thermal management and GETI (Gestion

dynamique de la puissance Electrique et de la gestion Thermique) test platform. Examples of Liebherr technological involvement were discussed with the Panel, e.g. Vapour Cycle System, the

electro thermal wing ice protection system and the E-ECS. The Panel appreciated E-ECS good

overview and technological roadmap. Its scope is from model definition, components developments, ground and flight-test for large, regional and bizjet aircraft. For the bizjet no flight

test is planned. TRL3 has been achieved for the overall modelling. The major key technologies

were validated. Specific adaptations have been developed for regional aircraft e.g. constraints in

terms of space and flight envelope are taken into account. Special architecture has been developed for regional a/c e.g. an optimized ECS architecture. Since

2012 development of different components and key technologies common between regional a/c and

large aircraft has started. An ice wing protection system was presented to the Panel. The presentation included pictures of actual hardware a leading edge. Ground tests included a full

demonstration in icing wing tunnel at NASA facilities. Thermal management validates components

as well as system architecture. A first vapour cycle system prototype has been developed. Ground demonstration for key components such as the high cooling vapour systems and validation of

thermal management architecture are foreseen at the GETI test platform. The visit to the GETI

facility allowed the Panel to see real hardware pieces and preparations for demonstrations.

Assessment test were conducted while the Panel was visiting the facility.

SGO concluding statements:

The transversal ITD SGO develops technologies addressing More Electrical Aircraft and

Management of Trajectory and Mission. The Panel observed concrete examples of technologies,


architectures and software tools as well as preparations towards demonstration activities. In

general, flight and ground demonstrations are foreseen for MAE technologies while ground

demonstrations are foreseen for MTM technologies. The documentation, presentations and

demonstrations during the technical visits provided good evidence of the SGO contribution to the

ACARE goals in terms of weight, fuel savings and noise reduction.

The Panel appreciates that the SGO technologies take into account results from previous FP

projects and develop them further. SGO mature technologies have been adapted to regional and

large aircraft ITDs. Many technologies are expected to achieve TRL 5 or TRL 6 e.g. the green

take-off function and Electrical Environmental Control System. Still, the Panel notes that not all

technologies will achieve TRL 6 e.g. advance weather algorithms.

The assessment of TRL has been more challenging than expected. Currently, TRL monitoring

and risk management tools have been implemented in a satisfactory manner. Lessons learnt

from this assessment process can be transferred to other domains.

SGO has a lot of interfaces internally within CS and externally e.g. with SESAR. Deficiencies in

receiving documentation from SESAR have been identified. Specific reviews between SESAR

and CS are carried out and members seem satisfied with the level of interaction achieved. Close

involvement of EASA is still an open issue. More coordination with TE and SESAR is advised

regarding models e.g. noise models and noise assessments to ensure complementarity and

synergies.


5.5 Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE)

The SAGE Objectives

The purpose of the Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE) ITD is to assess, design, build and test up to five full-scale engine demonstrators for various types of aircraft.

The proposed engine ITD contains 5 testing vehicles, distinguished by application (helicopter,

regional, narrow-body and wide-body) and by engine architecture (2-shaft, 3-shaft, open-rotor). These demonstration vehicles are using the competencies and facilities of all the European aero-

engine manufacturers complemented with those of related research establishments, academia and

SMEs.

The proposed demonstrations will prepare new solutions for the complete range of the market, with

engines for the narrow body fleet, high thrust engines for wide body aircraft, regional aircraft

engines and helicopter engines. For fixed-wing aircraft, a particular focus will be put on the novel

engine architectures (open-rotor and geared-fan engine).

The primary focus of engine demonstration is ground test to deliver proven architectures for

advanced engines and mature “ready to use” technologies.

The SAGE Structure and Research Programme

The SAGE ITD is divided into 6 main sub-projects:

SAGE1, Geared Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Demonstrator,

SAGE2, Geared Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Demonstrator,

SAGE3, Large 3-Shaft Light-Weight Turbofan Demonstrator,

SAGE4, Geared Turbofan Demonstrator,

SAGE5, Turboshaft Demonstrator

SAGE6, Lean Burn Combustion

SAGE Contribution to ACARE Goals

The successful validation of these technologies will then facilitate the early introduction of innovative new products to significantly reduce the environmental impact of air transport.

The impact on the achievement of the ACARE targets, relative to the ACARE baseline, in the

context of ongoing major research programmes is shown in the Table below.

Engine Sector Environmental Targets and Achievements

CO2 NOx Noise (EPNdB)

Cumulative

2000 Baseline Baseline Baseline Clean Sky -14 % to –20 %

TRL 6 -60 % to –80 %

TRL 6 -16 to –20

TRL 6 ACARE -20 % -80 % -20

* NOx baseline is roughly consistent with 80% of CAEP2

** Noise baseline is roughly ICAO Stage3 – 10 EPNdB

Assessment on the Status of the SAGE ITD

The present assessment is based on a number of documents received from the European

Commission and a number of meetings, among which technical visits or review meetings.

SAGE 1 (Geared Pusher Open Rotor – Rolls-Royce, UK)

A strategic change was made by RR to reduce activities in SAGE1 to the benefit of new activities

on Lean Burn Combustion for which SAGE 6 was created. RR confirmed that there would be no demonstrator for SAGE1 within Clean Sky. Activities are now concentrated on technology areas


relevant to the design of CROR systems, such as aero-acoustics, some mechanical design and

manufacture of key components, and participation in EASA/industry studies of safety issues and

airworthiness requirements. The OR Demonstrator Engine preliminary concept design is available. A first analysis of extensive

rig test data suggests that ACARE Noise goals can be met, which the Panel considers as an

achievement that has to be underlined. Performance levels are close to predictions and shared with SFWA-AI for A/C level assessment. Aero-acoustic design methods and tools have to be further

developed and ORA design and manufacturing technology acquisition has to go on.

SAGE 2 (Geared Pusher Open Rotor – Safran/Snecma)

A strategic change was also made by Snecma to abandon the initial direct drive architecture to the

profit of the geared engine architecture. The engine demonstrator concept phase was completed mid-2012. The selection of the geared configuration and of the gas generator from the M88 engine

is set. However, the choice of the donor engine results in a number of additional technical

challenges, in particular, the design of the power turbine due to the strong temperature gradient

caused by the dual flow of the core engine.

R-SAGE.1 – lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel questions the appropriateness of designing a new

CROR engine demonstrator, based on the non-optimal choice of an existing gas generator. It is understood that this is a cost and time limiting solution. There are doubts whether the final

demonstrator is going to be fully representative of a future CROR engine. Therefore the Panel

recommends strengthening the validity of the design in view of more representative demonstrators.

The Engine Demonstrator preliminary design phase is on-going (Demonstrator modules

architecture selection and Engine demonstrator performance). However, some of the so-called

design-to-demo assumptions remain unclear. Engine technologies risks abatement plan is on-going (Propeller blades: Wind tunnel tests / Full scale composite blade manufacturing for tests, PCM:

Mechanical analysis & Component tests).

Despite the very challenging design of the Power Gear Box (PGB), no component tests are

scheduled, which remains a major risk of failure of the demonstrator. There are several other areas

of the engine where there are significant technical challenges and risks – for example, the pitch

change mechanism, the control system, the dynamic behaviour of the rotating parts, etc.

The problems which may be encountered are likely to cause delays, which could impact

significantly on the time finally available for the engine tests. Overall, the difficulty of holding the project to the current plan is considerable and the time frame to demonstrator is extremely tight, if

not unrealistic.

R-SAGE.2: It is highly recommended to explore the possibilities of testing the gearbox (with

AVIO) in order to reduce the associated risk.

SAGE 3 (Advanced Large 3-shaft Turbofan - Rolls-Royce, UK)

The activities carried out in the frame of SAGE 3 are considered to be well on track with a first

engine test (of a series of 3) already completed in January 2013.

Advanced Dressings (Fig. 5.5.1) demonstrations are completed with nearly 100 hours of engine running time. Composite Fan test preparations are ongoing, a complete set of composite fan blades

(Fig. 5.5.2) and annulus fillers have been delivered and were shown to the Panel during the visit of

June 18.


Figure 5.5.1. Advanced light weight dressings on fan case (RR-UK).

Figure 5.5.2. First large size composite fan blade (RR-UK). Intercase rig testing is completed with successful series of tests investigating structural stiffness

and strength, culminating in ultimate load test.


The LP turbine module design passed the PDR and the whole engine design assessments is

continuing. Ground demonstration is foreseen in 2013 and flight demonstration in 2014.

Early CfPs are starting to close, delivering components such as variable fuel pump, high temperature electronics, etc, but are not going to be tested on the demonstrator engine.

SAGE 4 (Advanced Geared Turbofan - MTU)

The first GTF engine has been certified and the donor engine is available as technology platform

for Clean Sky testing. The SAGE4 ground demonstration test programme is scheduled for the first

quarter of 2015.

The detailed design is executed according to plan; the fourth design review has been passed in June 2013 (middle of detail design phase).

Manufacturing trials for special processes and component rig tests have been started (e.g. tests of

abrasive behaviour of blade – stator sealings). The demonstrator test concept is currently established with the programme partners; the test

concept review has been held in April 2013.

Although it is presented as the flagship of SAGE 4, the Power Gear Box remains the main concern.

A CfP has been launched to manufacture a test rig and the winner is a consortium led by the

University of Pisa. Besides the time schedule to manufacture the rig and test the gear box, which is

very tight, a new issue appeared at the beginning of this year: AVIO has been bought by GE, a major competitor to Pratt & Whitney, manufacturer of the donor engine. There is, therefore, a risk

of jeopardizing the tests. However, as the decision has been taken not to test this new AVIO

gearbox in the demo engine, the planned engine demonstrator running would presumably be unaffected but this issue needs clarification.

R-SAGE.3: The conditions of access to the future Gearbox test rig by third parties needs to be

clarified.

R-SAGE.4: The planning and technology features of the SAGE 4 demonstrator need to be clarified

and confirmed.

R-SAGE.5 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The possible influence on programmes of changes in the

structure of industry should be kept under review by CleanSky officials, with the aim of identifying opportunities to prevent or to minimise adverse effects.

Some activities on advanced rub system, electromechanical machining of blisks, SLM VGV

mechanism were stopped and new activities like non-contact blade vibration monitoring were introduced. Work on TiAL for the LPT seems to show overlap with Level 2 projects like E-Break

or ENOVAL.

R-SAGE.6 –Lessons learnt for CS2: In general, the boundaries between activities carried out

within FP7 Level 2 programmes and CleanSky are not clearly defined or explained. The Panel

recognises that CleanSky is intended to bring those Level 2 technologies to a higher TRL level but the issues of duplicate work and duplicate funding should be monitored.

SAGE 5 (Advanced Turboshaft – Safran/Turbomeca)

This sub-project seems to be the most advanced one with the first turboshaft engine demonstrator running and tests being completed at the end of April 2013. The official celebration of the first

rotation of the TECH800 turboshaft demonstrator took place on the 26th

of April 2013 in Pau

(France), in the presence of Siim Kallas, Commissioner for Transport and Vice-President of the European Commission, Eric Dautriat, Executive Director of Clean Sky, Jean-Paul Herteman,

Chairman and CEO of Safran and Olivier Andries, Chairman and CEO of Turbomeca (Fig. 5.5.3.).


Partial rig test activities have been carried out:

• Dynamic rotor test has been completed in January 2013.

• HP turbine test for build2 has been performed end 2012 (earlier than expected). Demonstrator Parts Design activities for build 2 are completed.

Demonstrator Parts Manufacturing Activities are on-going:

• Raw part for build 2 has been ordered Engine assembly for build 1 is completed.

First rotation for build 1 has started in February 2013.

Figure 5.5.3. The TECH800 turboshaft demonstrator at Safran/Turbomeca.

This very well managed project encountered its initial major technical difficulty with those first

engine tests. Although all the rig tests on the separate components have been successfully

completed, severe vibrations were encountered during the initial running of engine Build 1, started

early this year. A committee of experts has been set up to investigate the situation and to identify a solution.

There are no problems on the other components: the Build 1 combustion chamber will withstand

the temperature of Build 2 engine tests and it has been decided to cancel the second combustion chamber manufacture.

The collaboration with GRC 7 was presented; twelve (!) engine models will be delivered: three references (year 2000, year 2020, with and without CS) for four types of helicopters.

Another issue raised during the SAGE 5 review is the future of unsuccessful - and only partially

successful - CfPs. All CfPs within Sage 5 but one (the inlet guide vane electrical actuator which

will be too late for the tests) were not necessary for the demo; most of them concerned “nice to have” types of technology. Several are completed by now and there is no follow on expected. This

raises two questions: the future of these CfPs and the way to improve the choice of sub-contractors,

as already mentioned (see Recommendations R-6.2.2, R-4.5 and R-4.6).

SAGE 6 (Lean Burn Combustion – Rolls-Royce, UK)

SAGE 6 addresses lean burn combustion for large engines allowing a drastic reduction of NOX

emissions, an objective clearly in line with the general environmental objectives of Clean Sky. The requirement for the Lean Burn ALECSYS demonstrator engine has been issued for stakeholder

review, the related definition document is worked with feedback from sub-systems. Full Annular

Rig testing with latest set of injectors was successful. A formal Stage 1 Exit review with the Rolls-


Royce audit team was carried out in May 2013, further reviews are on track to hold first engine

pass to test end of 2014.

An important development in the structure of SAGE 6 is the addition of WP 6.9 covering the testing of the lean burn system on the Rolls-Royce EFE (Environmentally Friendly Engine) core

vehicle. This can provide the increased temperature and pressure at combustion chamber entry

which will exist in future large engines and allow measurement of emissions at these conditions. Satisfactory results from these EFE tests will then be followed by the whole engine demonstration

on the ALECSYS (modified Trent 1000 donor engine). Unfortunately, however, turbine damage

due to an unresolved incident on EFE is currently causing delay, and the corresponding risk is not

yet clear. Another issue in lean burn development is the possibility of adding flight testing to SAGE 6, at an

additional cost of 17 M€ (plus 7 M€ already given). Flight work is not currently included in the

SAGE 6 programme, though if all goes well in ground testing it might be possible to accommodate it within the timeframe of Clean Sky 1.

No formal proposal for such flight work, and its extra funding, has yet been made and it appears to

the Panel that the time between the end of ALECSYS ground test and the suggested FTB dates seems too short to allow any change on the combustor (as an example a delay of six month is

necessary to re-manufacture the injectors).

R-SAGE.7: Any proposal for a lean burn flight test within Clean Sky time scale has to be clarified in terms of schedule and financing.

SAGE concluding statements:

The purpose of the Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE) ITD is to assess, design, build and

test up to five full-scale engine demonstrators distinguished by application (helicopter, regional,

narrow-body and wide-body aircrafts) and by engine architecture (2-shaft, 3-shaft, open-rotor).

These demonstration vehicles are using the competencies and facilities of all the European aero-

engine manufacturers complemented with those of related Research establishments, academia

and SMEs.

The main novelties in the SAGE ITD are the start of engine demonstrator tests (SAGE 3 – Large

Turbofan and SAGE 5 – Advanced Turboshaft) and the availability of new hardware including

the composite fan blades (RR) for the large turbofan, composite blades (Snecma) for CROR and

the intermediate casing (GKN) for the turbofan. Another important achievement is the noise

issue of CROR engines, which could be significantly mitigated by appropriate design of blades.

Confidence is now expressed by both SAGE 1 and SAGE 2 leaders that CROR powerplants can

achieve the reductions in external noise levels (in EPNdB) desired in future civil aircrafts. The

Panel regards all these achievements as encouraging outcomes of the CleanSky work so far.

However, delays in the work plan are still threatening the programmes although mitigation

plans are being adopted. Changes in the industry structure in Europe may also threaten the

programmes and the consequence of the acquisition of Clean Sky Partners by non-European

competing firms should be considered. The high number of CfPs is promoting involvement of a

large number of SMEs at European level and widening participation of companies from other

industrial sectors. However, the low success rate of those CfPs in some areas remains a concern.

Finally, further consideration should be given to the detailed process of estimating the benefits

of the CleanSky programme in relation to contributions from other relevant programmes, and to

how the benefits can most clearly and accurately be conveyed to authorities outside the specialist

scientific/technical community.


5.6 EcoDesign (ED-ITD)

The ED objectives:

ED focuses on the reduction of the environmental impact during the on-ground phases of the aircraft life cycle: design and production, maintenance and withdrawal. It aims to develop

technologies for these three phases to allow a drastic reduction of waste. The objective is to reduce

the environmental impact while maintaining the European Industry competitiveness. ED addresses aircraft and Helicopters, but does not address reduction of fuel consumption. The concept of the

ITD is well illustrated by Figure 5.6.1. below. The final eco-statement is an extrapolation of green

technologies to real industrial conditions to evaluate its environmental impact and benchmark against current technologies.

A/C Reference parts

Bill of Materials & Processes

A/C Material &

Process cakes

LCA on Reference

parts

Technologies Eco-Statement(current & innovative)

Combination for A/C

extrapolation

A/C Level Eco-Statement

(current & innovative)

Composite

10%

Miscellaneous:

Copper, bronze,

synthetic

5%

Titanium

3%

Steel

1%

Aluminium

81%

Material & Process Technologies

Figure 5.6.1. ED concept and main results

The ED Structure and Research Programme:

The ITD is composed of two streams of research managed in parallel: Design for Aircraft

Application (EDA) and Eco-Design for small aircraft Systems (EDS).

The EDA stream focuses on all relevant phases: design, manufacturing, maintenance and aircraft

disposal. This stream is developing tools and investigating technologies to assess their potential

contribution to the objectives (refer to figure 5.6.2 left side). The Life Cycle Assessment relies on software tools such as GaBi LCA database extension that support design for environment and

Atalys. The design model is based on a survey of green design in different industrial branches

(shipbuilding, railway and car industries (EDA T33-02-03). The most promising technologies are

evaluated and further developed to reach maturity. Figure 5.6.2 (right side) illustrates the process managed by the EDA stream of the ITD.

DatabasesCommercial (GaBi,

Ecoinvent, etc.)Aerospace

(CS EDA developed)

ToolsExpert

GaBi ATALYS

InterfaceNon-expert Non-expert

SoA where more than 150 tasks were

highlighted, that corresponds to 235 “single

technologies”State of the art

Clustering and

downsizing

Trade-off based

on a scoring129 Technologies

Scoping Technology Development

T0+27

T0+60

T0+6

Downsizing in which EDA consortium members

were encouraged to identify their company's

favourites

Clustering where WP 2.1 and 2.2 technologies

were grouped to stress EDA key topics and to

focus the ground demonstration on these key

areas

Figure 5.6.2. Databases for Life Cycle Assessment (left side) and process for selection of the

most promising technologies


The EDS stream focuses on enabling the removal of all hydraulic driven equipment on board small

aircraft and helicopters by replacing them by electrical systems. The small aircraft domain has been selected because it is easier to address by developing high TRL technologies from the state of the

art at CS launch. This stream is addressing technologies with a dual focus on functionality and

thermal contribution. Test beds have been designed for both purposes: thermal simulation and functional integration.

Expected deliverables:

EDA is working on ten structure partial demonstrators, two cabin interior partial demonstrators and six equipment demonstrators.

EDS is focusing on a small aircraft common electrical platform with an electrical ground test

facility and a thermal test bench facility. This is performed in cooperation with GRC and GRA by

sharing the COPPER Bird test rig.

ED contribution to ACARE’s goals:

The ITD contribution is related to the reduction of the environmental impact during the on-ground

phases of the aircraft life cycle The EDA stream targets are -20% reduction of process emission,

full compliance with REACHregulations and -15% reduction in energy consumption. Concerning the EDS stream, the contribution is taken into account at the vehicle ITD level. Environmental

contributions include weight benefits and energy management target is a reduction of fuel

consumption by 2% and removal of hydraulic noxious fluids. .

ED is designing tools and enabling technologies to mature from low TRL to high TRL. There is no

explicit evidence of the ITD contribution to the objectives of CS, however the EDS contribution is

used as an input into the “Aircraft ITDs” and then fed into the TE, thereby providing proof of the ITD contribution. The EDA contribution is still difficult to assess and work should be done to

clarify and make more transparent the contribution of the ITD. The process used by the ITD is

shown in figure 5.6.3. Whilst most of the input to TE comes from the vehicle ITDs, the EDA results are fed directly into the TE.

Figure 5.6.3. EDA feeding process of TE.

The ITD status:

This ITD proceeds well in a structured and organized manner. The level of activity, the remaining amount of funding and the current schedule are consistent and will allow a complete execution of

the programme within the allocated period of time.


This ITD was not selected for a dedicated analysis. All the information was provided in written

form and during a briefing on April the 10th.

The ITD organisation:

The ITD is lead by DASSAULT AVIATION and the FRAUNHOFER Institute. Eight leaders are managing key packages. Most of the relevant key stakeholders in the industry are involved. A high

number of partners (in total 110) are involved and provide the content of individual work packages

related to Calls for Proposals issued by the JU.

Key findings and remarks:

The Panel got the impression that:

The amount of funding dedicated to the ITD is quite modest in comparison to most of the other

ITDs (57.13M€). The ambition and scope of the ITD is quite large and diverse (EDA and

EDS).

The domain of research of EDA has not been investigated in depth during the past decade in

the different FPs. There is little material in terms of existing practices in Aerospace.

111 technologies are investigated within EDA. The review of each technology was not possible

in the allocated timeframe, however a sample was required from the ITD leaders and selected

by them: “Replacement of Chemical Machining by Mechanical Machining”. Surprisingly,

these technologies have been used for decades and are well understood. The trade-off results which were provided raise a question mark about the contribution of this specific study to real

research.

R-ED.1: The Panel recommends reviewing the relevance of the high number of technologies reviewed by the ITD EDA stream. The size of the ITD stream is too small to encompass so many

technologies and bring them successfully to TRL 6.

R-ED.2: It is recommended to check that EDA is taking into account lessons learnt by other

domains such as automotive and by the emerging deconstruction eco-system.

EDS is working on relevant topics providing potential contribution to the ITD’s objectives.

However, it is not clear how the EDS results are taken into account into the TE and how it can be used to provide data to assess trade-offs and make choices. A number of important integration tests

are conducted on the different test beds; it is important to make sure that the coordination with

SGO and GRA is excellent at operational level.

R-ED.3: Taking into account the content of EDS, it is recommended to ensure consistency and

check gaps or overlaps with SGO and GRA/ GRC ITDs related to electricity. There are synergies

and potential cross fertilization opportunities.

ED concluding statements:

The ED ITD is focused on a very critical domain for Aerospace. Until now this domain has been

insufficiently taken into consideration by research studies in the different Framework

Programmes, namely to improve the environmental impact of Aircraft design, manufacturing,

maintenance and withdrawal.

The ITD is well managed and its contribution is notable. However, the JU should better define

the concept of the ITD and indentify the potential contribution from other State of the Art

domains to Aerospace (e.g. railways, automotive, etc.) in order to build a consistent and coherent

approach for the domain. Clean Sky 2 offers an opportunity to launch a top-down design phase

to address the domain by taking into account inputs from other areas.


5.7 Technology Evaluator (TE)

The TE Objectives

The TE objectives are clearly described in the document CLEAN SKY Aeronautics & Air transport

JT1 Proposal – March 2007. As a summary:

The Technology Evaluator will provide a core activity of the project integrating the technical

content across the JTI. The TE will be realised through a simulation suite that can evaluate the

merit of R&T activities in the ITDs in relation to the ACARE targets (see Fig 5.7.1.).

Figure 5.7.1. Technology Evaluator Input /Output scheme

The translation of the impact of innovative airframe, engines, systems and eco-design

technologies into overall ATS performance, with respect to the environmental challenges, is

the general objective of the Technical Evaluator of Clean Sky. TE also will provide feedback to

the ITDs at different levels: aircraft design, aircraft operations and global ATS (see Fig 5.7.2..

Figure 5.7.2. Technology Evaluator feedback to ITDs

TE development and assessments will be a continuous effort during nearly all Clean Sky

duration, with delivery of several upgraded versions. A new significant version should be

delivered on a yearly basis, following new achievements in technology ITDs, for which constant support will be delivered.


Thus, TE has the important role to assess and to ensure visibility on the environmental impacts of

new technologies developed in CS ITDs towards ACARE environmental goals in terms of aircraft

emissions and noise. In addition, TE can perform trade-offs studies addressing interdependenc of impacts or other issues as requested by ITDs.

The TE management activities are subdivided into administrative and technical, carried out by two

organisations. The division of work between ITDs and TE seems clear. The ITDs are responsible for developing technologies up to a sufficient TRL and integrating these technologies into ITD

aircraft concepts.

The overall budget of 31M€ is shared between the 12 ITD leaders and 5 TE associates (17 TE

Members). It is identified that universities and research institutions have around 70% of the budget while industrial partners each have very low participation. By the end of 2009 under spending was

identified. By the end of 2010 under spending was again about 15%, with a discrepancy of about

15% between work not executed versus planned.

R-TE.1 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel considers that budget allocation and involvement of

ITD leaders should be reinforced. This would help ensuring ownership on the results of TE

assessment and implementation of corresponding improvement measures.

The efforts to produce the aircraft models were greater than anticipated. In 2011 a delay of six

months was due to late delivery of conceptual aircraft models from the ITDs. In particular Counter

Rotating Open Rotor (CROR) model was incomplete (simplified data base for emissions – no noise

data). The 2011 spending versus planned showed under spending around 10% of the planning budget, this fact was due to lack of participation of key partners. The first assessment results were

issued by the beginning of 2012. At mission level activities, the plan was to include twelve

conceptual aircraft types. However, only four types had been assessed completely (noise and emissions). At airport level, it was remarked that because the noise of CROR powered aircraft

could not been taken into account, the figures could not been representative.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reference aircraft is of great importance in understanding the impact

of new technologies. However, the work mainly refers to materials, energy, so it is unclear which ITD was responsible for generation of aircraft models for the LCA.

R-TE.2: The Panel has not identified clear quantifiable targets for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

The Panel recommends that methods and metrics to assess LCA benefits are addressed by CS present or future research.

The information required from aircraft ITDs is defined in TE requirements and architecture WP1.

The metrics and outputs to indicate CS benefits in relation to ACARE goals have been determined. TE assumes an extrapolation from Y2000 to Y2020 with normal traffic forecast. The analysis of

benefits is performed by a gap analysis between two cases, a case with and a case without CS

technologies. However, the actual integration of CS technologies in future aircraft depends on

aircraft manufacturers decisions, airlines and certification aspects.

R-TE.3 - CS1 and CS2: The Panel believes that more formal involvement of certification

authorities and decision makers is needed. Their direct feedback in the TE evaluation is needed to

take into account the necessary steps to move forward the Clean Sky developments into actual implementation in future aircraft systems.

Initially TE was supposed to be an independent tool that was receiving the initial data for the ITDs

and building an overall assessment. Currently, the updated aircraft concepts are delivered as “black boxes” only inputs to TE are specified. Due to confidentiality issues and disclosure of property data

among organisations not all data within each “black box” is provided as visible. The Panel

considers that the evolution is negative, in the sense is that a lot of components are provided as

“black boxes”; from the ITDs, the degree of independence is quite limited and does not allow room for manoeuvre. TE is not a position to define the boundary conditions. This has an impact on the

ability to verify the validity and the accuracy of the models.


R-TE.4 – CS1 and CS2 related: The resolution, granularity and assumptions included in the

aircraft models have a potential impact on verification of their representativeness and accuracy. It

is important that aircraft models are as transparent as possible referring to known standards of providing sufficient information.

Particular attention should be provided for the dissemination of results. This dissemination should

communicate tangible results without creating unrealistic expectations on CS deliveries.

The results of TE

Annual reports about the activities of TE have been delivered for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

However, only the Annual Report 2012, delivered in early 2013, provides a large enough set of

figures showing environmental impacts of concept aircraft models involving new technologies developed by the ITDs. These results were presented to the Panel during two meetings (10/4/2013

in Brussels and 24/5/2013 in Toulouse). We have been really impressed by these presentations,

because we saw, for the first time, a real proof has been given of the beneficial effects of the newly developed Clean Sky technologies for the future of the aviation industry and the public (see Fig

5.7.3., source: CEAS conference 2013).

Figure 5.7.3. TE Assessment Results 2012 – Showing Strong Progress to the Programme

Goals

The ultimate objective of Clean Sky (eventually including CS2 activities) is for TE to prove CS

contributions to the achievement of the ACARE goals: abatement of CO2 (-50%) of NOX (-80%), of Noise (-50%) and Green design (‘ecolonomic’ life cycle of the aircraft). The technical

discussions on the results reported to the Panel in 2013, indicate that developing further the present

ITD technologies and, may be, introducing additional new technologies, Clean Sky together with other initiatives (e.g. SESAR and other research programmes) can contribute to achieve the

ACARE goals.

The results have been obtained by implementing Conceptual Aircraft Models, making use of the

models provided by the vehicle ITDs. The vehicle ITDs conceptual aircraft models (SFWA, GRC and GRA) includes the effects from the transversal ITDs (SAGE and SGO). Three aircraft models

are used: a Y2000 reference aircraft, a concept aircraft Y2020 without CS improvements and a


Y2020 ITD conceptual aircraft with CS technologies. The vehicle ITDs deliver to the TE every

year updated a/c models. The updated a/c models include the most promising technologies

including different key information such as TRL and environmental potential. The TE assessment consists in flying the conceptual ITD aircraft in a sound technical manner in various scenarios at

mission level (one aircraft), at local fleet level (airport) and at ATS level (global fleet).

R-TE.5 – CS1 and CS2 related: It seems that TE consists of three computing platforms (aircraft, airport and global). The Panel considers that work is needed in the creation of an integrated TE

framework and how this framework can be developed and used beyond CS. This recommendation

will help to evaluate technologies associated to environmental improvements in a harmonised and

systematic manner.

The Panel members were informed that the TE results could be used by the ITDs to support the

decision which technologies must be pushed to a higher TRL. However, the Panel does not identify

indications of significant use of the feedback to the ITDs, as suggested in Fig 5.7.2. and in responses provided (ref. first list of possible questions to the ITD TE n2_FM). The Panel is of the

opinion that a clarification is necessary about the meaning of the TE feedback to ITDs shown in the

Clean Sky 2007 Proposal (page 159).

Concrete examples of 2012 assessment results were provided during the technical visit. The work

is performed by three complementary computational platforms. The overall TE results (aircraft

level) for 2012 are shown in Fig 5.7.3.. Three categories of aircraft are considered: Business JET (2

types), Regional (2 types), Large Commercial (3 types). The resulting environmental impact (CO2, NOx, Noise) is compared with the objectives set in the Clean Sky Development Plan. In most cases

the TE evaluation results, are short of the CSDP objectives, but just. In few cases (NOx for

Regional GRA 90 and GRA 130, and both CO2 and NOx for Long Range Turbofan) the TE evaluated performance are better. Information to understand the real reasons of these discrepancies,

although minor in most cases, has not been provided in the documentation made available to the

Panel members.

The noise mainly comes from the engine. The improvement of noise level, is measured in decibels or in reduction of the Noise surface area, which shows improvements between 30% and 45% in different flying conditions. The table of figure 5.7.3 qualifies noise reduction as reduction of the

surface area only. There should be also a dB reduction, which is not included because the data were

not provided for all the concerned ITDs. The Panel has been assured that from the next TE assessment on, all dB values will be also available, enabling comparison with ACARE targets and

CSDP objectives.

The Global TE planning suggests that model development and validation, as prepared inside the TE

(airports, scenarios, metrics…), will extend until the end of 2014, while the assessment of impacts

and trade-off studies will extend through 2016, when TE will deliver its final assessment based on latest aircraft models delivered by ITDs. The Panel appreciates that TE work includes the use of a

TE information system to keep traceability of the aircraft models, new technologies included, TRL

status applied in these models and results from TE assessments. There is concern regarding future updates of TE information system when no deliveries are foreseen after 2014 (the planning in the

documentation provided to the Panel seems to be wrong). The initial models have been run and the

plan is to update them each year.

R-TE.6: The duration of the TE information system needs to be aligned to the duration of TE

assessments. This is to record latest assessment results and their impact.

The aircraft model in 2012 included natural laminar airflow, CROR engine and specific SGO technologies. The different aircraft manufacturers hold details on aircraft models. It has been

noticed that TRL varies from TRL1 until TRL4.

R-TE.7: Low TRL technologies are included in aircraft models. However, the purpose of the TE is to assess the impact of mature and most promising technologies.


At mission level, results from SFWA were presented and take-off profile follows ICAO procedure.

Considering only take-off results a reduction of 37% avg noise area was identified. At airport level,

Amsterdam airport was presented as demonstration case for emission and noise levels. At ATS level short range aircraft have the biggest effect on fuel burn.

Overall results from TE assessment for future business jet (compared with present Falcon aircraft),

future regional (compared with ATR-72 and Embraer E-190), future large (compared with A320 and A330) aircraft and rotorcraft (from generic light single engine to generic heavy) were

discussed. Benefits in terms of CO2, NOX and Noise were identified. These benefits indicate

progress in all ITDs. Nevertheless, it is noticed that only results of two out of five rotorcraft

categories were covered in the 2012 assessment.

R-TE.8 – CS1 and CS2 related: The airport and global (ATS) level needs to include SESAR and

NextGen effects in the ATM system developments.

The Panel appreciates that it is essential that the models have sufficient acceptance, validation and consider certification aspects and be preferably on ECAS or ICAO based models. (2010, 2011

review reports). It is unclear:

if other models e.g. those developed within the broader FP7 or noise models developed

within SESAR are considered for potential use in TE (TEAMPLAY). The Panel was informed that Clean Sky and SESAR JU have initiated common meetings to harmonise

modelling facilities. For Clean Sky TE, the goal is to be able to better insert SESAR-

driven new ATM operations in TE’s scenarios.

other relevant initiatives of FP6 and FP7 projects are used to provide a potential estimate

for configuration and propulsion (e.g. DREAM, NACRE) or avionics configurations (e.g. SCARLETT).

TE concluding statements:

The Panel observed real progress in the TE assessment. TE has a critical role of assessing the

environmental impact of the CS technologies by flying the conceptual aircrafts in various

operating scenarios. The Panel could greatly appreciate real figures of ITDs environmental

benefits and contribution to ACARE targets. However, the conceptual aircrafts have been

delivered as black boxes hampering the initial role of TE as an independent instrument.

Consequently, future TE developments must shift towards a more open definition and validation

of conceptual aircraft models.

The TE assessment provides an opportunity for ITDs in their decision making to focus on most

promising technologies. TE has experienced some delays due information not timely available

from ITDs. The Panel identifies a lack of use of the feedback mechanism that ensures use of the

TE results within the vehicle ITDs. The Panel recommends a more active use of TE assessment

results and the ITDs can define and follow-up the effect of the corresponding action.

Finally, the frequent interactions with TE officials in the course of the preparation of the Panel

report, have allowed clarifying the concept of noise reduction. Up to now noise reduction has

been qualified as a reduction of the noise surface area, while, to compare with the ACARE goals

a dB reduction should also be evaluated. This has not been included so far, because the data for

this additional evaluation were not provided for all concerned ITDs. The Panel has been assured

that as of the next yearly TE assessment, all the dB values will be also made available by the

ITDs, thus enabling the TE to perform the expected comparison with the ACARE targets and

CSPD objectives.


6 Evolution since 1st Evaluation

6.1 Introduction

Both expert Panels in charge with the CS Interim Evaluation in 2010 and 2013 have been

confronted with delays and budget problems, in particular and to a large extent the 2010 Report. These are certainly very important issues that can have some impact on the technical and scientific

results. However even the most efficient organisation and the best planning with no delays or

overspending have a rather limited value unless organisational results go hand in hand with scientific and technical achievements. These should lead to technologies which are suitable, at

Aircraft level, at Airport level and at Air Transport System level, to allow design and eventually

manufacture of aircrafts, with reduced fuel consumption, CO2 and NOx emissions and noise level

up to the values requested by ACARE in 2020. By paradox, it would be much better to make available these technologies with some delays and at some extra cost, in place of providing on time

and within the planned costs, technologies not sufficiently thought out and tested. In the evaluation

period, suitable planning steps have been accomplished and overall good technical progress has been achieved. However, it should be noted that the original ambitions had to be adapted to the

programme timeline and available resources.

R-6.1.1 – CS1: Clean Sky has many ground and visual demonstrations as the programme reaches its end. Attention should be paid to the most critical and success factors for the programme. A

thorough monitoring and a clear prioritization on available resources vs. remaining work vs.

technology environmental benefit toward demonstration are deemed necessary.

R-6.1.2 – Lessons learnt for CS2: It is noted that TRL evaluation occurs at a late stage of the CS plan. By the time the TRL evaluation is performed, design concepts, technological developments

and implementation directions have been committed to a great cost. The Panel recommends an

early evaluation of TRL potentials and their environmental benefits when a technology is considered for CS. Useful lessons should be drawn also from CS work on technologies that were

not successful and have been stopped.

The Panel has verified through documentation review, meetings and site visits that technological

developments are making significant progress. Therefore, in the following comparison, priority is given to the evaluation of scientific and technical progress towards the goals of Clean Sky, i.e.

significant reduction of CO2 and NOx emissions and noise level, which is the very reason why

Clean Sky has been set up in the first place.

The 2010 assessment was based on extensive presentations (in Brussels) of the status of

development of the management and technical activities of the CSJU, six ITDs and TE by members

of the staff operating in the premises of the CS Partners.

The 2013 assessment could the benefit, in addition, from visits to the Partner’s facilities, so that the

actual progress in the ITD’s development could be really seen, and a fruitful exchange of views and

discussions between the Evaluation Panel members and the company’s engineers could take place.

R-6.1.3 – CS1: The main objective of CS is to accelerate the introduction and development of environmental friendly technologies in the next generation vehicles. While it is important to review

overall management documentation and progress of technical activities, it is particularly crucial to

perform a verification of actual developments at Partners sites. For future evaluations, the Panel recommends to include technical site visits. A representative selection of technical visits can

provide new ways of understanding developments and helps reconciling technical evidence and

lessons learnt across ITDs.


6.2 Management 2010-2013 evolution

Since the previous evaluation, the CS Executive Office has been able to implement management

tools and to take appropriate measures to identify and mitigate risks. Managerial tools such as strategic risk management at JU level and broken down to ITDs have been established and used.

The CSJU developed and maintains a detail road map for each technology including TRL

monitoring. The Panel is informed that low TRL activities are limited to less than 15%. The definition and use of TRL has been more difficult than planned, in terms of understanding and

consistency across technologies and ITDs.

The Panel appreciates that a systematic review of 2010 recommendations has been accomplished and that most of the recommendations have been implemented. The overall impression is that the

Clean Sky consortium as a whole is focusing its activities and steering towards their demonstration.

However, it is considered critical that the recommendations of the first interim review for a

contingency budget could not be implemented. The current review noted that ITDs make use of the full time frame and many activities are shifted towards the end of the programme.

R-6.2.1 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to implement contingency plans in terms

of budget and demonstration activities.

The 2010 interim evaluation recommended a review of the remaining CfP activities to be covered.

The review of the documentation revealed that a sample review was performed and some topics

were not closely related to the demonstrators. The topics of the call are regularly checked with the EC in order to avoid potential overlaps with FP7. However, the review of the documentation

showed that some projects were cancelled due to an overlap with national programmes.

R-6.2.2: The Panel recommends the streamlined coverage of CfP towards ITDs objectives and

endorses the overall regular review of the CfP programme within the CS prioritising at this stage demonstration activities.

Clean sky has been successful in involving SMEs in the CfPs and ITDs. It is noted however that

this success increases the workload. CS is entering the final critical phase where CS success is demonstrated through ground or flight demonstrations. The resources available within the JU are

still considered limited to manage ITDs, CfPs and additional tasks.

R-6.2.3: The Panel is concerned that many demonstrations activities have been shifted towards the

end of Clean Sky and recommends ensuring the adequate deployment of resources within the ITDs

The initial link with SESAR was not optimal. There have been delays in passing on information

from SESAR to CS which have been identified to affect progress for example from SESAR to SGO

MTM. This problem has been improved in 2012 and common reviews between programmes have been performed.

In the evaluation period, dissemination work has been improved through participation in various air

shows and through the establishment and implementation of a Communication and Dissemination Strategy. Still, there are possibilities for further increasing the CS visibility, which have been

indicated in the Panel´s Recommendations R.3.5.1-3.5.7. Regarding scientific impact, a strategic

plan identifying high impact journals and conferences and a specific plan how to address these

media is recommended.


6.3 Risks follow up from 1st Interim Assessment

The following risks, already identified after the 1st Interim Assessment are considered to be still an

issue requiring continuous monitoring to minimize their escalation and undesired impact on ITDs and/or TE performance:

IPR confidentiality and TE performance:

The Panel has found evidence that IPR confidentiality is an issue which cannot be eliminated by

CSJU processes. Addressing TRL 6 technologies involve pre-competition confidentiality risks in very sensitive and highly competitive areas such as Engines and Airframes.

To avoid difficulties related to IPR confidentiality and to conflicts of interest related to

competition, the Panel recommends setting up an Airframers Advisory group -potentially enlarged to the Engine manufacturers - to advise the GB about market conditions and trends.

This group would also manage the inputs from the TE to provide the JU and the GB with

recommendations and proposals for different options.

Risk of insufficient communication between the JU and the ITD: The actions decided by the JU have significantly mitigated this risk. However the limited resources of the JU management team are still a limiting factor.

Insufficient staff resources to cover JU operational needs: The Panel believes that the actions taken by the JU have mitigated most of the risk. However a

priority is allocated to administrative tasks. The Panel believes that improvements are possible but

with additional resources dedicated to technical tasks and formulated specific recommendations (see R-3.3.1 and R-3.3.2).

Lack of formalization of interfaces at ITD level: The Panel believes that the actions put in place by the JU have been effective. The interfaces are

clarified; however the matrix methodology used to fix the issue is cumbersome and does not allow

flexibility and adaptation. For this reason, many actions have been implemented, e.g. SGO. Interfaces are defined in the contract annexes as deliveries of hardware or software. Direct contacts

and participation in WP meetings, cross participation to annual reviews and trans-ITDs workshops

on common themes are arranged.

Topic failure in CfPs could hamper the realization of the demonstrators:

The Panel believes that the risks that a Work Package selected after a CfP fails and may potentially impact a demonstrator performance, cost or schedule is very low. However, the Panel has noticed

that some Work Packages selected after CfPs are providing weak results (see R-4.4 and R-4.5).


6.4 Scientific and technical comparison

This section is dedicated to the description and the evaluation of the progress within the six ITDs

and TE. It is important to stress that the visits to the facilities of most of the key players, the technical discussions between the company’s engineers and the Panel, have been the key factor for

understanding and appreciating the work of Clean Sky and the tremendous progress over the past

two years.

6.4.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA-ITD) 2010 -2013 evolution

1

st Interim Evaluation (2010)

The objective of SFWA1 is to mature passive and active flow control technologies. In the presentation to the Panel, pictures of an impressive 2x2 m test/trial wing Panel demonstrated

progress in design of a smart wing.

The objective of SFWA2 is to integrate these technologies on the overall aircraft level by preparation of ground demonstrators, by continuing feasibility studies to integrate CROR engines,

with respect to noise and vibration.

The objectives of SFWA3 ‘flight demonstration’ are large scale flight tests of passive and active flow and load control solutions at high speed.

The above activities are still at the detailed planning stage and the Panel expressed explicitly the

position that the accomplishment of demonstration targets are of prime importance for the overall

Clean Sky success.

2d Interim Evaluation (2013)

The SFWA project has suffered from serious delays. A complete rescheduling was underway when

the Panel reviewed the ITD. The result of the bottom up analysis was presented to the Panel. The

Innovative Power Plant project is delayed beyond into CS2 because of engine definition and flight

test issues.

R-6.4.2: The Panel recommends to freeze the objectives and plans as soon as possible and to

monitor from close the technical status of SFWA projects to make sure that no further delays happen. The ITD has probably overcome the most important risks, however, according to Airbus,

there are still some potential difficulties.

6.4.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA-ITD) 2010 -2013 evolution

1st Interim Evaluation (2010)

GRA is addressing technologies and procedures allowing future regional aircraft to achieve weight

reduction, better aerodynamic efficiency and higher level of operating performance with respect to

the 2000 technology level. The rationale for the importance of this specific market segment in achieving the ACARE 2020

goals was presented convincingly. The underlying work programme defines clear paths toward

demonstrators. However, the individual pillars are progressing at different speeds and some significant delays are observed. GRA has a high level of confidence that all the demonstration

goals and initial objectives are achievable in timeframe up to 2015, in accordance with the original

schedule. Strong interaction with the other ITDs exists, but the interface with SGO is still under

negotiation.


The Panel recognises a significant level of dependencies between GRA and the other ITDs and the

related interfaces are clearly defined. However the efficiency versus the related level of

coordination should be subject to further review. The Panel identifies a large TRL gap to be bridged through GRA activities. The Panel recognises

the concern of a potentially growing unbalanced situation between high TRL programmes versus

upstream research initiatives enabling innovation.


The status of GRA-ITD and the progress made since 2010 is described in Section 5 of the present Report. Here we only summarise some of the key (experimental) activities to highlight the

progress. The Agenda of the 4-5 July meeting in Pomigliano d’Arco (Alenia) shows the extent and

the depth of the Panel Members visit. The Panel visitors consider the approach to ‘Low Weight Structure’ as the main feature of the visit.

The choice of GRA to develop a new composite material as a principal feature to reduce the weight

(and consequently fuel consumption and emissions) of the aircraft, was explained ‘in front’ of a prototype section of fuselage and wings, same already manufactured and ready for tests (a Table

with the detail of the ground tests- executed or underway- and the planned flight tests is shown in

Chapter 6 of this Report), other still underway. This new material (covered by a patent) was

presented as a wide tape of typically 0.1mm thickness. By wrapping this tape, at three different angles 0° - 45° -90°, the required thickness of the structure is reached (typically 1mm thick or more

where required). Stringers of the same material are used, to reinforce he structure as required.

Some key tests to prove the strength of this structure have been performed (in the presence of the Panel Members), against hail ‘sphere’ up to 2.75 cm in diameter and against drop of tools up to 30J

of energy. Ultrasonic tests were performed to prove that in both cases there was no internal

damage.

The design of ‘all-electrical aircraft’ was presented and components were shown in the workshop. Tests on the section of a fuselage showed substantial vibration; this was corrected by inserting a

dumping material in the middle of the fuselage structural material.

The design of the Mission and Trajectory Management was also presented and one of the green functions (GCI, Green Cost Index), the cruise speed function was verified in two ATR72 flights

from Venice to Napoli.

Finally the GRA Simulation Model (GRAMS) was used for the environmental impact studies, obtaining numbers for the reduction of the emission (CO2 – 24% and NOX -45%) and Noise level

reduction of the impact area by up to 45%.

More information is given in Section 5.2.

6.4.3 Green Rotorcraft (GRC-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution


GRC focuses on the integration of technologies and demonstration of rotorcraft platforms. The first

phase of the activity was dedicated to the consolidation of the work plan. This phase took longer than expected, due to the ITD complexity and size. A significant part of the associated delays has

been recovered. GRC has implemented adequate management structures and procedures.

Coordination within and across the ITDs is reported to be satisfactory. During the assessment,

evidence has been provided of good technical progress. However, there are still technologies that have low TRL. In view of the budget and time constraints, the ITD should consider focusing on

technologies with higher TRL and select only few technologies with low TRL or alternative

solutions.

The Panel recommends establishing a detailed roadmap of technical progress in order to compare

achievements against the plan. It should include key decision points, technology milestones and a schedule of TRL achievements. In addition, the Panel notes that TRL definitions are provided in


several documents, but TRL understandings might differ. Therefore a consistent use of TRL should

be achieved.


It is clear that the ITD is well run at overall level and shows strong interactions with other ITDs as well. Significant progress is documented in the latest annual report and the presentations for both

content and shaping aspects, confirmed a wide application of the technical reviewers’ former

recommendations.

In each sub-project, a sound selection of concrete targets has been presented with a real concern to focus on their final contribution to CleanSky objectives.

Risk analysis and management of schedules, including TRL achievements, are present in almost all

activities with a pertinent highlighting of consequences and major problems. Management of cross contributions from partners and other ITDs appears to be well handled.

6.4.4 Systems for Green Operation (SGO-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution


SGO is addressing two different areas of technology: Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE) and

Management of Trajectory and Mission (MTM). MAE focuses on the development of all-electric

system architecture, while MTM aims at developing technologies and procedures to reduce fuel

consumption, emissions and noise by management of trajectories. The Panel recognises a clear strategic approach towards the ACARE 2020 targets. Good evidence

is provided that the environmental targets are in line with the technical progress of SGO so far.

Good progress towards the definition and development of the demonstrators has been observed. Having planned the ITD ‘top-down’ in 2008, the ITD management spent significant effort in

completing the planning with a ‘bottom-up’ approach. These activities resulted in a new planning

baseline. On the other hand the first annual SGO review has already identify delays. This ITD is

highly interconnected with other ITDs. Interfaces exist to GRC, GRA, ED, SFWA and TE. However, SGO has no global demonstrators and each technology is managed individually.

The Panel considers that the foreseen level of coordination is appropriate. However, it is recommended to align the complete spectrum of related activities to each other, including

scenarios, tools, validation strategies and means in order to obtain a common validation baseline

and to allow comparable analysis of achievements. Moreover, the Panel in 2010 recommended an early involvement of stakeholders such as airlines, air navigation service providers, airport and

EASA.


Good evidence of technical progress towards SGO global objectives has been provided. In the

second evaluation period, the SGO has been exposed to several technical and administrative difficulties. As a result realignment of activities has been necessary reducing the initial ambitious

scope, but keeping SGO overall objective. For example, the initial GAM in 2008 including as

enabling technologies management of robust performance in presence of atmospheric perturbations

based on characterisation and surveillance. The updated GAM showed that new sensors related to this activity reached TRL 3 maturity in 2012 and no further maturation was possible.

The new GAM is very extensive, which makes difficult to have an overall view and to identify the remaining technical problems and opportunities. Still, there is a concern regarding new

developments such as improved weather algorithms which seems ambitious to be completed within

the time frame of Clean Sky. It is not certain that new developments at this stage of the programme are in line with progress towards ground and flight demonstrations.


As noted in the ITD report, many demonstrations are shifted toward the end. In 2012, interactions

between SGO and SESAR have been improved. EASA is involved though annual meeting. A more active involvement of key stakeholders is still needed.

6.4.5 Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution


The engine demonstrators include five different engines.

SAGE1 (Geared ‘Contra-Rotating Open Rotor’ Demonstrator), and SAGE2 (Geared ‘Contra-

Rotating Open Rotor’ Demonstrator) are led by two different industrial organisations. So far,

emphasis has been largely on studying various concepts and preparing for the technical work for future years.

SAGE3 (Large 3-shaft Light-Weight Turbofan Demonstrator) was launched in 2009, with the

initial aim of identifying candidate technologies for demonstration and application in next generation of medium and large turbofans. Finally an engine demonstration project was developed

for system technologies that could together deliver the environmental performance required for

future engine generations. SAGE4 (Geared Turbofan Demonstrator) activities progressed with study work to define size and

operating conditions of a demonstrator vehicle supporting future product strategy at its best – but it

was considerably hampered by changing single aisle aircraft requirements. Consequently the

technical work for the demonstrator programme deviates from the planned progress. However SAGE4, (with SAGE3 and SAGE5), represents one of the few propulsion configurations with firm

industrial commitment to be transferred into a commercial product near-term.

SAGE5 (Turboshaft Engine Demonstrator) has initiated the preliminary design of all modules of the demonstrator, with a validation of the architecture and all preliminary designs, especially of the

core engine though thermal, mechanical and aerodynamic analysis. In addition, some progress has

been made on defining the engine development planning and the partial rig test planning.

The Panel considers the fact that certain demonstrator engine configurations have already been

committed to become an industrial commercial product near-term, has to be positively

acknowledged. However the Panel recommends careful monitoring of the demonstration contents to prevent a public post-founding of activities which would have happened anyhow out of

commercial necessity and commitment.

For a comparative assessment of the various SAGE ground and flight demonstrators, agreement has to be reached amongst the key contributing Members and those responsible for the Technology

Evaluator, on what can and should be measured in the tests and how the data evaluation should be

carried out to be widely accepted.


Main Achievements

The main novelties in the SAGE ITD are the start of engine demonstrator tests (SAGE 3 and SAGE

5) and the availability of new hardware including the composite fan blades (SAGE 3 - RR) for the large turbofan, composite blades for the CROR (SAGE 2 - Snecma) and the intermediate casing

(GKN Aerospace) for the turbofan. Another important achievement is the noise issue of CROR

engines, which could be significantly mitigated by appropriate design of blades. Finally, SAGE6 has also completed successfully the Full Annular Rig testing with latest set of injectors.

Budget and Delays


Although it was reported during this assessment review that in several cases improvements were

being achieved in the resourcing of SAGE projects, programmes generally are still showing a

tendency to ‘slide to the right’, reflecting delays in planned ‘ramping up’ of effort and expenditure. While recognising the current pressures on industry - due to major product development and

production commitments - project managers are urged to continue to emphasize to their higher

managements the importance - technical, commercial and political - of the Clean Sky joint undertaking. Every effort needs to be made to ensure that the planned engine demonstration

programmes are achieved within the Clean Sky 1 timeframe, which terminates at the end of 2016.

R-6.4.3: With the aim of minimising the danger of planned demonstration programmes failing to be achieved within the timeframe of Clean Sky 1, continuing efforts should be made where necessary

by project managers to emphasise to their higher managements the importance - technical,

commercial and political- of the Clean Sky joint undertaking, and ensure the appropriate level of resources are available and committed to the projects.

Evolution of the industrial structure in Europe

Discussion arose during the review regarding the possible effect on Clean Sky programmes of

changes in the structure of industry. It was noted that problems might arise if a company

participating in Clean Sky is taken over by a non-European firm, which is either directly or indirectly linked with competing non-European interests. A current example is the question of

future access by European companies to the gear system test rig, planned to be procured in

connection with AVIO gear testing under SAGE 4 (see R-SAGE.3).

The Call-for-Proposal Process

The progress of the Calls-for-Proposal (CfP) portion of the SAGE programme continues to be a matter for some concern. Although a large number of CfP contracts have now been launched, there

is evidence that in some areas the rate of achieving successful applications of the results of CfP

work to the engine demonstrators is likely to be disappointingly low. Sometimes a development simply fails technically; in other cases, a device developed under a CfP contract turns out to be

incapable of being fitted (e.g., for reasons of size or weight) in the demonstrator under whose

auspices it was launched. Reviewers felt that SAGE members should consider whether some CfP developments, which had turned out to be inapplicable to their initiating project, might be useful to

other projects.

R-6.4.4: The Clean Sky Project Manager should keep under review the emerging results and apparent prospects for application of CfP topics, with a view to identifying increased opportunities

for application among the range of projects.

Often, the poor results relative to the project are related to inappropriate choices of subcontractors

(see R-4.6).

In some cases it also appeared that developments starting at very low TRL were proposed as CfPs

to be launched at a late stage of projects. This weakens credibility and could be interpreted as a

means of using underspent budgets.

Evaluation of technological benefits

Regarding the vital Technology Evaluation phase, aimed at deriving a measure of the benefits that could result from the developments made through the Clean Sky programme for relevant classes of

future civil aircraft, the reviewers were concerned that the inevitably complicated processes

involved may not yet have been fully established. There appears to be a need for greater clarity and

consistency regarding how to define and to quantify the contributions from the SAGE projects and, in particular, in relation to contributions from other sources. It is essential that interactions between


the SAGE projects, the aircraft companies, and the TE staff, should be characterised by rigour and

consistency. As stated in a slide presented at the 5th Review (June 2012) by the JU, “The TE

assessment is key for Clean Sky”.

There are still delays in the delivery of aircraft models, generally due to delays in engine model

deliveries to air-framers. It is disappointing that four years after the start of Clean Sky, there is still no quantitative result from TE on the gains between reference aircraft from 2000 and the reference

2020 aircraft with and without Clean Sky technologies.

Furthermore, it appeared during the review that the objective of evaluating the differential gain

coming from Clean Sky technologies has been abandoned. In doing so, the existence of a new generation of medium range aircraft (A320 NEO, B737 Max) and of long range aircraft (B787,

A350) is not taken into account in the global analysis of the TE, which seems difficult to

understand.

R-6.4.5: Further consideration should be given to the detailed process of estimating the benefits of

the Clean Sky programme in relation to contributions from other relevant programmes, and to how the benefits can most clearly and accurately be conveyed to authorities outside the specialist

scientific/technical community.

Duplication of activities

SAGE1 and SAGE2 are led by different industrial organisations but aim at the same CROR engine

demonstrator. A strategic change was made by RR to reduce activities in SAGE1 to the profit of new activities on Lean Burn Combustion for which SAGE 6 was created. RR confirmed that there

would be no demonstrator for SAGE1 within Clean Sky 1.

The focus for SAGE1 has been on further refinement of demonstrator requirements, developing

more detailed understanding of the issues involved in demonstrating open rotor engines and progressing and selecting concepts for the demonstrator. The demonstrator project has progressed

in three work streams, i.e. open rotor assembly, core engine and integration and test.

SAGE2 activities resulted in a recent concept change from direct-drive to a geared version, which represents a partial restart and implies additional concerns with respect to the potential duplication

of work with public funding.

- With respect to technical activities, the demonstrator requirements specification was critically revised and promising concepts at engine level and at engine sub-systems level were screened.

- As a result of the mentioned concept change, SAGE1 and SAGE2 have essential concept

technologies in common. In the interviews carried out by the Panel, it was argued that the

implied risks in any CROR development justify a certain competitive duplication of activities.

]Both SAGE 1 and SAGE 2 seem to be highly dependent on the pending SFWA go/no-go decision

on whether to proceed to a flight test programme with a demonstrator CROR engine installed in a modified Airbus aircraft. For this reason, some activities have been deliberately limited such as on

work on mechanical and manufacturing aspects at GKN or even put on hold such as ITP work on

the 3-stage booster compressor. Since the decision to give up the CROR engine demo, most of SAGE1 activities are of “on-going

technology” type, which means that the final delivery at the end of CleanSky1 will be less easy to

define quantitatively.

R-6.4.6: The Panel is of the opinion that when the SFWA/AI go/no-go decision on a CROR

demonstrator aircraft emerges it might be necessary to reconsider and clarify, SAGE 1 future

activities within the Clean Sky time frame will be needed. On the basis of their recent independent experimental research and analysis, the leaders of both

projects are now expressing confidence that CROR powerplants can achieve the reductions in

external noise levels (in EPNdB) desired in future civil aircraft.


Although further work will be required to investigate thoroughly the acceptability of open rotor

noise, including noise characteristics inside the aircraft, the Panel regards the above as an

encouraging outcome of the CleanSky work so far.

6.4.6 Eco-Design (ED-ITD)


ED concentrates on ‘green’ design, production, use and maintenance, withdrawal and recycling of aircraft, fully in line with goals state in the ACARE SRA2 . It is broken down into two areas: Eco-

Design for Airframe (EDA) and Eco-Design for Systems (EDS, small aircraft). The plan includes

slack on critical path activities. Still, the following issues require further consideration:

No clear indication of dependence within and across ITD. It is not possible to assess the effect

of combined contributions to the different delays reported.

No overall view of deliverables for ED-EDA in the activity report including delivery date

planned, actual or forecast delivery.

In conclusion, ED achieved to bring expertise together under a common ambitious goal. It is

acknowledge that significant efforts have been invested to consolidate the ITD and produce results. However, there is concern regarding the identified delays and their consequences.

The Panel recommends that means to actively recover delays and mitigate future delays should be identified within and across ITD as a risk mitigation strategy. This could include design reviews,

aiming at less risky and less time consuming technical solutions.


The ED ITD is proceeding on time toward the agreed objectives. Both the Eco-Design for Airframes (EDA) and the Eco-Design for Systems (EDS) are making good progress against

schedule.

On EDS the Panel recommends to check the interfaces with SGO and GRA/ GRC work packages

related to electricity to make sure that there are neither gaps nor overlaps. On EDA the Panel recommends to ensure that the quality of the CfP is at the right standard in

every case.

Globally, at the ED ITD level, it is recommended to ensure that the ED results are taken into account in the TE and that feed back is provided as soon as possible.

6.4.7 Technology Evaluator (TE)


TE has the strategic role in the CS programme of evaluating at three different and independent

levels the environment achievements. It has to be pointed out that the TE activities are not carried

out in its [I believe it should stay, own right, but serve the monitoring and steering of the CS

activities towards the ACARE Strategic Research Agenda. The start of TE activities was slow with a kick-off meeting only in December 2008. As a consequence the first full assessment of CS is

planned by the end of 2011, albeit with a limited set of models. A second assessment will be

carried out in the final demonstration by the end of 2015. The 2011 assessment is likely to come too late to impact the definition of demonstrators. TE will not provide guidance for decision

making regarding demonstrators and it will merely assess the demonstrators’ integrated

environmental impact.


The Panel understand that the feedback role of TE on ITD activities is limited due to the timing of

TE assessments. Nevertheless, the role of TE in providing guidance to ITDs should be emphasized.

Therefore TE should be given more pro-active responsibility in the interaction with the ITDs. The Panel remarks that the current limitation in interactions between TE and ITDs could be

significantly mitigated, should demonstrator and TE activities be carried out beyond the current

deadline of 2015.

2nd Interim Evaluation (2013)

Annual Reports about the activities of TE have been delivered for 2008 – 2009 – 2010 – 2011. However, only the annual Report 2012, delivered in early 2013, provides figures showing

environmental impacts for Concept Aircraft Models, involving new technologies developed by the

ITDs. These results were presented to the Panel during two meetings (10/4/3013 in Brussels and 24/5/2013 in Toulouse). These presentations were very impressive, because the Panel saw, for the

first time, a real proof of the beneficial effects of the newly developed Clean Sky Technologies for

the future of the aviation industry and society. The ultimate objective of Clean Sky (eventually including CS2 activities) is for TE to prove CS

contributions to the achievements of the ACARE goals (CO2 -50%, NOx – 80%, Noise level -50%)

and green design. The technical discussions on the results reported to the Panel, indicate that by

developing further the present ITD technologies and, eventually may be, by introducing some additional new technologies, Clean Sky, together with other initiatives (e.g. SESAR, etc.) can

contribute substantially in achieving the ACARE goals. Concrete examples of 2012 assessment

results were provided during the technical visit.The work is performed by three complementary computational platforms (see Fig 5.7.3), Chapter 5, section 5.7 of this 2

nd Interim Evaluation

Report). These results have been obtained by building up Conceptual Aircraft Models, provided by

the vehicle ITDs. Environmental impact results presented to the Panel for GRA (see Chapter5,

section 5xf.2) compare relatively well with those produced by TE. This can be considered a poof that the TE and the GRA results, all in all, are consistent.

In conclusion, the Panel observed a real progress in the TE assessment, which should provide an

opportunity for the ITDs in their decision making to focus on most promising technologies. The Panel identifies a lack of a feedback mechanism that ensure use of TE results within the vehicle

ITDs, perhaps with an exception, GRA-ITD, as indicated above.


7 List of Recommendations (for Clean Sky 1)

This section contains the full list of recommendations. The recommendations are numbered

according to the chapter, where they have been raised for the first time. The final columns indicate

to whom the specific recommendation is mainly addressed to.

Sec

tio

n

Recommendations

JU

GB

EC

Fu

ture

PP

Ps



R-2.1 – CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in relation

to CS objectives. The Panel recommends a more transparent traceability

between the ACARE goals and the specific contributions from Clean Sky. x x

R-2.2: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to

provide more clarity and consistency in the figures presented as well as on the assumptions taken for the evaluation of the environmental targets in

relation with the ACARE goals.

x x x

2.2 Coordination with FP7, SESAR and National Programmes

R-2.3: It is recommended to deepen the existing relationship with both

SESAR and ACARE aiming - at working group level – to reach a better view within the JU at large about the airlines, ANSPs and other

stakeholder communities.

R-2.4: The Panel believes that information exchange between the JU and

NSRG is very important and recommends that the NSRG continues to play a crucial role in ensuring the coherence of national programmes with

Clean Sky.

x x x

2.4 Effectiveness in promoting participation

R-2.5: The Panel appreciates that Clean Sky does not require a consortium as a condition for participation to calls for proposals; even a

single entity can apply and that there are a number of mono-beneficiaries

also amongst SMEs. It however recommends making the high participation

of SMEs and of new players more visible (see also 3.5 Efficiency in

Communication).

x

2.5 Effectiveness of ITD and TE strategies

R-2.6: The Panel recognises that the TRL concept has been refined during CS and recommends the CSJU to disseminate the results across the R&D

community. x

R-2.8 – CS1 and CS2 related: The visit provided evidence of very good

cooperation between research development activities and flight test

preparations. Detailed reviews have been conducted including

x x


Sec

tio

n

Recommendations

JU

GB

EC

Fu

ture

PP

Ps

multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel in flight test. Moving from the example of the good GRA flight test preparation, the

Panel recommends to ITDs to make greater efforts to communicate and disseminate best practices and encourages them to extract from successful

cases of other ITDs useful lessons for own future activities.


R-2.10: CS2 is an appropriate framework to implement and manage

industry-led projects. It is important to devote a significant share of the budget to such projects, to bring technologies from TRL 3 to TRL 4 or at

best 5, without the a-priori objective of contributing to a flying full scale

platform demonstrator.

x x x x

R-2.11: It is important that this type of industry-led project is run directly

by the JU without interference from the big projects of higher TRL.

x x x x

R-2.12: These projects should use the Technology Evaluator to provide

inputs during the evaluation phase and to assess environmental impact and efficiency at the end of the projects.

x x x x

3 Clean Sky - Organisation and Efficiency

3.1 Appropriateness of the CS legal framework and governance

R-3.1.1: The Panel recommends that the STAB role is preserved and enhanced for example in drafting the future updates of the SRIA. Their

contribution – also for a CS2 – is considered significant and it is

recommended to ensure that high quality individuals are involved as it is the case in Clean Sky.

x x x

R-3.1.2: Notwithstanding the valuable involvement of the advisory bodies,

there is still room for a greater and more pro-active involvement of the

STAB and NSRG. The CS JU should seek to maximise the potential of its advisory bodies to gain support for the remaining calls and other activities

at all levels.

x x

3.2 Appropriateness of the JU internal rules and funding

R-3.2.1 The Panel underlines that the Clean Sky JU also contributes to

achieving the roadmaps that have been jointly agreed between all

stakeholders, considers the multi-annual approach as advantageous and recommends this to be continued in the future.

x x x


Sec

tio

n

Recommendations

JU

GB

EC

Fu

ture

PP

Ps

R-3.2.2: The Panel regrets that concerning the negotiation of a multi-

annual GAM, there continues to be a need for more flexibility in the

management of GAMs. In general, the Panel recommends more discretionary power for the Executive Director in management matters

and believes that GAM budget transfers should be initiated, negotiated

and implemented by the Executive Director. This step would help speeding up the implementation of necessary decisions since it would no longer be

necessary to involve the Governing Board.

x x x x

R-3.2.3: The Panel is aware that recommendations have been issued about

completeness and timing of the strategic planning (CSDP) and alignment with annual planning (AIP) and annual amendments of the GAMs. In this

context a specific finding has been raised by the Internal Audit Service

(IAS) concerning subsequent changes of topics compared to the approved AIP. The Panel endorses plans to delegate a number of decisions and

functions from the GB to the ED for the approval of such changes in order

to ensure the necessary flexibility for the JU to adapt the lists of topics to

the actual needs during the year.

x x x x

R-3.2.4 – CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel considers that the existing

possibilities to redistribute the budget amongst ITDs (as the transfer

occurred in 2012 between ITDs) are an initial useful step towards providing some budget flexibility. The Panel regrets that there is still no

contingency budget since this would enable transversal

flexibility.Therefore the Panel recommends to the Governing Board to

consider introducing a 5-10% contingency budget.

x x x x

R-3.2.5: The Panel is of the opinion that the verification of in-kind

contribution is still a laborious and time-consuming issue to manage and

negotiate and that the current procedure is not efficient. Therefore it

recommends steps to simplify the procedure.

x x x

3.3 Efficiency of the JU Executive Team organisation and procedures

incl. monitoring

R-3.3.1: Notwithstanding that the Executive Office has made significant

progress in speeding up processes and reaching operational efficiency, the

Panel recommends that some further adjustments will be carried out to improve efficiency. Now that the Clean Sky JU is well established, the

balance of skills between general administration and project management

in the Executive Office needs some readjustment.

x x x


Sec

tio

n

Recommendations

JU

GB

EC

Fu

ture

PP

Ps

R-3.3.2: The Panel considers the number of the JU technical staff as being

insufficient and recommends a review by the Governing Board of staff

requirements to ensure that the Executive Team can exercise in full its coordinating and monitoring functions. At the same time the Panel

recommends a review of potential services to be shared with other JUs and

of administrative services that could be outsourced.

x x x

R-3.3.3: The Clean Sky Executive Office should seek further ways of

reducing bureaucracy and ensure that it has the optimal organisational structure for the tasks ahead.

x

R-3.3.4: Although participation and success rate of the applications

indicate that the performance of the JU in administration of the

programme, project management and programme design and implementation is adequate and capable, the Panel notes that the “Time to

grant” is still rather high (240 days from call publication to GAP; 360

days on average for grants signed in 2012) and recommends this to be shortened.

x

R-3.3.5: The Panel acknowledges the value of the adopted system of 16

internal control standards and considers this a robust system for an

efficient and effective management. The Panel appreciates that there is a satisfactory alignment of strategic and annual planning and recommends

its systematic implementation.

x

R-3.3.6: The Panel welcomes the intention of the JU (as in the GB meeting

of 22.3.2013) to launch trainings for Topic Managers and endorses endeavours to increase the monitoring from the Project Officers and the

administration team, to make sure delays and problems in execution of the

projects are tackled as soon as possible. These steps are important ones to address bottlenecks currently limiting the overall efficiency.

x

R-3.3.7: The Panel appreciates that in the evaluation period ex-post audits of financial statements of CS JU beneficiaries have been implemented and

recommends that the efforts undertaken to reduce the error rates be

continued. It values that the JU has put efforts in improving its ex-ante

validation process and has provided guidance to its beneficiaries concerning the eligibility of costs for the Clean Sky projects.

x

3.4 Efficiency of ITD organisations and procedures


Sec

tio

n

Recommendations

JU

GB

EC

Fu

ture

PP

Ps

R-3.4.1: The Panel appreciates that monitoring and control tools are

mature and implemented. The Panel recommends harmonized progress

activity reports and technical evaluation reports across ITDs. In particular, progress reports should contain achieved progress against

plan, and achieved deliverables against planned deliverables. The Panel

recommends technical evaluation reports to follow the EC standard. This standard is useful in terms of evaluating in a systematic manner technical

and management aspects.

x

3.5 Efficiency of communication

R-3.5.1: Cooperation and exchange between ITDs appears to be still limited and should be enhanced. Models and tools produced across ITDs

should be analysed in the view of potential complementarities. The TE

interface with other ITDs deserves careful consideration to ensure timely results.

x x

R-3.5.2- CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel believes that communication

between ITDs can be improved by using to a larger extent the TE as a tool

to feed back information and to discuss efficiency in technical matters. A closer relationship with the working groups of ACARE and SESAR could

also improve this communication process. The JU team should be more

involved in this process and additional resources need to be allocated to this task.

x x x x

R-3.5.3: The Panel believes that raising the profile of Clean Sky should be

a key aspect of the CS communications objectives. The Panel endorses the

recommendations of the previous interim evaluation and reiterates that CS should improve its visibility to the interested public.

x

R-3.5.4: The Panel appreciates the effort on the part of the Executive

Office to communicate call topics and disseminate the Clean Sky initiatives via publications. However the Panel felt that, as there have been more

successes stories coming out of the projects, these could form the basis for

intensified dissemination targeted to a broader range of stakeholders,

including policymakers within the Member States.

x

R-3.5.5: The technical information on the website should be improved,

with more active involvement and input from the ITDs. Moreover it is

deemed necessary to find appropriate forms for communicating the activities and assessment of the TE.

x

R-3.5.6: The Panel recommends that the CS communication strategy puts

more dedicated efforts for communicating the broader socio-economic and

environmental impacts not only to the aeronautical stakeholders, but also to the policy and decision makers at the European and national levels. The

NSRG and STAB should be involved in these initiatives.

x x


Sec

tio

n

Recommendations

JU

GB

EC

Fu

ture

PP

Ps

R-3.5.7: The Panel commends that Clean Sky has been successful in

attracting a high level of interest from companies, well above the average

participation of industrial entities in collaborative projects in FP7. However the Panel notes that although there is a remarkably high

participation of SMEs, Clean Sky is still perceived as “big industry and

big technology” and therefore recommends that success stories involving SMEs should be communicated on the website and in dedicated

publications.

x

4 Quality

4.1 Quality of Activities

R-4.1: The Panel recognises the added value of technical visits and

technical presentation meetings which provide more insight and permit a

deeper analysis in favour of an objective assessment. The Panel considers

this as a key instrument to assess the quality of the technical developments

and recommends to make site visits an integral part of the review process.

x x x

4.3 Quality of Calls for Proposals

R-4.3: In case of a large number of proposals for a specific ITD, the Panel

recommends a flexible distribution of responsibilities in order to optimise the associated work load within the JU.

x x

R-4.4: It is proposed that the topics include the possibility to present a

more innovative approach leading same results than the one described in

the topic.

R-4.5: It is recommended that the technical ITDs reviews include a

systematic CfP review to monitor and contribute to the high quality of the

CfPs. This would establish a clear connection between CfP topic and ITD objectives, thus improving the focusing of the technical activities.

x x x

R-4.6: The Panel notes that, in some cases, the inappropriate choice of subcontractors has led to poor results relative to the project they are

related to. The Panel therefore recommends the JU to investigate possible

ways of improving the selection process of subcontractors.

x x

5 Clean Sky ITDs and Technology Evaluator - Progress

and effectiveness


R-SFWA.1: The Panel recommends that flight tests should be taken into

account at the very beginning of the ITD. It is to be recognised as a

necessary step, overlooked at the project launch but very much needed to

ensure project success.

x


Sec

tio

n

Recommendations

JU

GB

EC

Fu

ture

PP

Ps

R-SFWA.2: For large ITDs, it is recommended to adopt systematically an

industrial project management methodology from the very beginning of the

project.

x

R-SFWA.3: It is recommended to secure robust commitment from the

participants, to find ways to prevent a lack of interest and of focus from

the participating companies and to secure adequate resource allocation by all.

x

R-SFWA.5: The Panel recommends the JU to focus on minimising the risk

of insufficient commitment of resources, and to entrust the GB with the

responsibility of motivating the potentially defaulting partners.

x

R-SFWA.6: Downstream research leading technologies to TRL6 maturity

should achieve the following steps: performance readiness, engineering readiness, operational readiness (main tenability, stability, etc …),

manufacturing readiness. The Panel believes this recommendation is

applicable to all large ITDs.

x

x


RGRA-1 – CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in

relation to CS objectives. The Panel recommends a more transparent traceability between the ACARE goals and CS specific contribution.

x x x x

RGRA-2 – CS1 and CS2 related: The site visit provided evidence of very

good cooperation between research & development activities and flight test preparations. Detailed reviews have been conducted including

multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel in flight test. It is

recommended to other ITDs to learn from the good GRA flight test

preparations.

x x x x

5.3 Green Rotor-Craft (GRC)

R-GRC.1: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to

provide more clarity and consistency in the figures presented as well as on the assumptions taken for the evaluation of the environmental targets in

relation with the ACARE goals.

x

5.4 Systems for Green Operation (SGO)

RSGO.1 – CS1 related: The Panel recommends carefully monitoring and

implementing an early warning mechanism for critical activities, success

factors of SGO. x

R-SGO.6: SGO benefits are expressed per flight phase. This makes a comparison across ITDs difficult regarding the most promising

technologies. Therefore, the Panel agrees with technical reviews about

alignment of SGO environmental benefits metrics to other ITDs.

x x

R-SGO.8: Demonstration activities for some equipment are foreseen in a single test platform. Back-up plans in case of delays in the test platform

need to be addressed.

x x


Sec

tio

n

Recommendations

JU

GB

EC

Fu

ture

PP

Ps

5.5 Sustainable And Green Engines (SAGE)

R-SAGE.2: It is strongly recommended to explore the possibilities of

testing the gearbox (with AVIO) in order to reduce the associated risk. x

RSAGE.3: The conditions of access to the future Gearbox test rig by third

parties needs to be clarified. x

RSAGE.4: The planning and technology features of the SAGE 4

demonstrator need to be clarified and confirmed. x

R-SAGE.7: Any proposal for a lean burn flight test within Clean Sky time

scale should be clarified in terms of schedule and financing. x

5.6 Eco-Design (ED)

R-ED2: It is recommended to check that EDA is taking into account

lessons learnt by other domains such as automotive and by the emerging deconstruction eco-system.

x

R-ED.3: Taking into account the content of EDS, it is recommended to

ensure consistency and check gaps or overlaps with SGO and GRA/ GRC

ITDs related to electricity. There are synergies and potential cross fertilization opportunities.

x


R-TE.2: The Panel has not identified clear quantifiable targets for Life Cycle Assessment LCA. It is recommended that methods and metrics to

assess LCA benefits are addressed by CS present or future research. X

R-TE.4: The resolution, granularity and assumptions included in the

aircraft models have a potential impact on verification of their representativeness and accuracy. The Panel recommends that aircraft

models are as transparent as possible with regard to known standards .

x x

R-TE.6: The duration of the TE information system needs to be aligned to

the duration of TE assessments. This is to record latest assessment results and their impact.

x x

R-TE.7: Low TRL technologies are included in aircraft models. However,

the purpose of the TE is to assess the impact of mature and most promising technologies and a better focusing of TE goals should be established.

x x

6. Evolution since 1st Evaluation

6.1 General Issues

R-6.1.1 – CS1: Clean Sky has a lot of ground and flight demonstrations at programme end. Significant attention should be paid towards the most

critical and success factors for the programme. Careful monitoring and

prioritization of available resources vs. remaining work and vs.

technology environmental benefit towards demonstration is recommended.

x x

R-6.1.3 – CS1: The main objective of CS is to accelerate the introduction x x x


Sec

tio

n

Recommendations

JU

GB

EC

Fu

ture

PP

Ps

and development of environmental friendly technologies in the next

generation vehicles. While it is important to review overall management

documentation and progress of technical activities, it is particular crucial to perform a verification of actual developments at Partners sites. The

Panel recommends future evaluations to include technical site visits. A

representative selection of technical visits provides new ways of understanding developments and to reconcile technical evidence and

lessons learnt across ITDs.


R-6.2.2: The Panel recommends the streamlined coverage of CfP towards ITDs objectives and endorses the overall regular review of the CfP

programme within the CS prioritising at this stage demonstration

activities.

x x x

R-6.2.3: The Panel is concerned that many demonstrations activities have

been shifted towards the end of Clean Sky and recommends ensuring the

adequate deployment of resources within the ITDs. x

6.4 Scientific and technical comparison

R-6.4.2: The Panel recommends to freeze the objectives and plans as soon

as possible and to monitor closely the technical status of SFWA projects in

order to make sure that no further delays occur. The ITD has probably overcome the most important risks, some exist still.

x x

R-6.4.3: With the aim of minimising the danger of planned demonstration

programmes failing to be achieved within the timeframe of Clean Sky 1,

continuing efforts should be made by project managers to emphasise to their higher management the - technical, commercial and political-

importance of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, and ensure the

appropriate level of resources are available and committed to the projects.

x x

R-6.4.4: The Clean Sky Project Manager should keep under review the

emerging results and potential application of CfP topics, with a view to

identifying increased opportunities across the whole of CS.

X

R-6.4.5: Further consideration should be given to estimating the benefits of the Clean Sky programme with regard to contributions from other

relevant programmes, and to how the benefits can be shared with

stakeholders outside the specialist scientific/technical community.

x x x

R-6.4.6: The Panel is of the opinion that when the SFWA/AI go/no-go decision on a CROR demonstrator aircraft emerges it might be necessary

to reconsider and clarify SAGE 1 future activities within the Clean Sky

timeframe.

x


8 Key Issues and Overall Recommendations for Clean Sky 2

8.1 SWOT Analysis

The Panel performed a SWOT analysis in order to place the evaluation in a broader context and to

help building conclusions and formulating recommendations. This SWOT analysis has been carried

out after the 2nd

interim assessment was completed in September 2013.

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

The basic principle of PPP in aeronautic research has been successfully demonstrated

CS JU as a central element of the European aeronautics landscape/Recognised as a

world-leading PPP in aeronautics

Distinctive cooperation model to address

non-competitive aeronautical challenges

Builds on FP6 and FP7 results, catalyst for private sector investment in European

aeronautic R&D

Valuable contribution to ACARE objectives. The TE represents an innovative approach to

evaluate environmental benefits in a systematic way. The TRL evaluation could

be adopted in other areas in the H2020

programme.

CS-JU as a valid instrument to achieve agreement on a strategic research agenda and (potentially) efficient use of research budget

High quality of scientific output and wide network of industry, SMEs and academia

High SMEs participation and involvement

Remarkable mobilisation and pooling of resources and expertise to tackle the most

complex problems of aeronautics along the

entire R&D cycle

Mobilised resources reinforced by synergies

across a broad range of stakeholders

Effective governance structure/proactive

participation of advisory bodies (NSRG and STAB)

High quality of processes and methodology

Gaining visibility through dissemination of results in scientific papers and conferences,

air shows and exhibitions

KPIs and Technology Evaluator not mature enough to demonstrate broader

environmental and socio-economic impact

Inadequate balance between scientific and administrative tasks of the CS Executive

Office:

- burdensome administrative rules,

regulations and controls and - insufficient technical resources (JU

level) to tackle transversal issues

Low flexibility esp. by budgetary issues;

lack of a contingency budget

In some ITDs unmet quality and effectiveness

No active use of TE feedback by ITDs

Insufficient resource allocation from

companies in some ITDs

Lack of clear priorities in allocating resources to projects in some ITDs

Still insufficient communication between ITDs

Limited coordination with national/ international initiatives potentially leading

to inefficient use of resources


OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

Potential for CS as a platform for building a common European vision for environmental focused research in Aeronautics

Developing new funding models

Communicate the broader socio-economic

and environmental impact beyond the aeronautic stakeholders

Explore synergies and potential cross-fertilisation in other industry sectors

Building a favourable environment for Level 2 like projects in the Framework of next EU

Research Programme

A negative perception among key stakeholder groups

Lack of priority in allocating key

resources by key players (associates) triggering endless issues: de-scoping,

rescheduling...

Missing key changes in aeronautic market needs

Changes in European industry structure, i.e. new ownerships or joint ventures


8.2 Key Issues and Recommendations for CS2

The CS has successfully demonstrated the principle of PPP in aeronautics, has become a

central element of the European aeronautic landscape and should be continued.

Clean Sky is sufficiently advanced today to provide important lessons in view of future

PPPs, such as Clean Sky 2.

The following recommendations are derived from the lessons learnt and are made as a

contribution to the construction of Clean Sky 2.

Sec

tio

n

Recommendations for CS2



R-2.1: CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in relation to the Clean Sky

objectives. The Panel recommends a more transparent traceability between the ACARE

goals and specific contributions from Clean Sky.

R-2.2: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to provide more clarity

and consistency in the figures presented and about the assumptions taken for the

evaluation of the environmental targets in relation to the ACARE goals.

R-2.9 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The traceability and evolutions of the GAM should be better documented to establish and assess its overall compliance and performance.

Further, this traceability should track changes in the GAM and its impact. This action

ensures the ability of the programme to adapt to new challenges and opportunities.


R-2.10: Additionally to its higher TRL activities, Clean Sky 2 would be an appropriate

framework to implement and manage industry-led projects of the size of the former FP7 Level 2 projects. It is important to devote a significant share of the budget to such projects,

to bring technologies from TRL 3 to TRL 4 or at best 5, without the a priori objective of

contributing to a flying full scale platform demonstrator. R-2.11: It is important that this type of industry-led projects are run directly by the JU

without interference from higher TRL projects in Clean Sky.

R-2.12: These projects should use the Technology Evaluator to provide inputs during the

evaluation phase and to assess environmental impact and efficiency at the end of the

projects.

3 Clean Sky - Organisation and Efficiency

3.1 CS legal framework and governance

R-3.1.1: The Panel recommends that the STAB role is preserved and enhanced, for

example in drafting the future updates of the SRIA. Their role – also for CS2 – is

considered significant and it is recommended to ensure that high quality individuals are involved as in the case of Clean Sky.


Sec

tio

n


R-3.1.3-Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel believes it is important that a constant feedback to the JU on National Programmes takes place and that in the future the NSRG

maintains a strong role and continues to exchange experiences, to advise and provide

recommendations to the JU Executive team.

3.2 JU Internal Rules and Funding

R-3.2.1 The Panel underlines that the Clean Sky JU also contributes to achieving the

roadmaps that have been jointly agreed between all stakeholders and considers the multi-annual approach as advantageous and recommends this to be continued in the future.

R-3.2.2: The Panel regrets that concerning the negotiation of a multi-annual GAM, there continues to be a need for more flexibility in the management of GAMs. In general, the

Panel recommends more discretionary power for the Executive Director in management

matters and believes that GAM budget transfers should be initiated, negotiated and

implemented by the Executive Director. This step would help speeding up the implementation of the necessary decisions since it would no longer be necessary to involve

the Governing Board.

R-3.2.4 – CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel considers that the existing possibilities to redistribute the budget amongst ITDs are an initial useful step towards providing some

budget flexibility. The Panel regrets that there is still no such contingency budget since

this would enable transversal flexibility. Therefore the Panel recommends to the

Governing Board to consider introducing a 5-10% contingency budget to increase flexibility.

R-3.2.6- Lessons learnt for CS2: It has been critically remarked that the Clean Sky

Financial Regulations only allow for either 20% flat rate without justification or real overheads and that there is nothing in between. For CS 2 it is recommended to verify

whether there are more efficient solutions.

3.5 Efficiency of internal communication

R-3.5.2- Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel believes that communication between ITDs

can be improved by using to a larger extent the TE as a tool to feed back information and to discuss efficiency in technical matters. A closer relationship with the working groups of

ACARE and SESAR could also improve this communication process. The JU team should

be more involved in this process and additional resources need to be allocated to this task.

4 Quality

4.1 Quality of Activities

R-4.1: The Panel recognises the added value of technical visits and technical presentation meetings which provide more insight and allow a deeper analysis and an objective

assessment. The Panel considers this as a key instrument to assess the quality of the

technical developments and recommends to make site visits an integral part of the review


Sec

tio

n


process.

R-4.2- Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to all participants to carry out a realistic risk analysis and establish early mitigation plans. For large ITDs, it is

recommended to adopt systematically an industrial project management methodology from

the very beginning of the project.

5 Clean Sky ITDs and Technology Evaluator - Progress and

effectiveness


R-SFWA.4: It is recommended at the pre-design phase level to run an assessment of risks

on the work package contents.

R-SFWA.5: The Panel recommends the JU to focus on minimising the risk of insufficient commitment of resources, and to entrust the GB with the responsibility of motivating the

potentially defaulting partners.


R-GRA-2 – CS1 and CS2 related: The site visit provided evidence of very good

cooperation between research development activities and flight test preparations. Detailed

reviews have been conducted including multidisciplinary teams with experienced

personnel in flight test. It is recommended that other ITDs learn from the current good GRA flight test preparations.

5.3 Green Rotor-Craft (GRC)

R-GRC3 - lessons learnt for CS2: The link with previous or ongoing Framework Programmes should be clearly stated in order to avoid overlap and possible double

funding. This recommendation is valid for all ITDs.

5.4 Systems for Green Operation (SGO)

R-SGO.2 – lesson learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends that administrative and project

management procedures are set-up before the start of technical work.

R-SGO.3 – lesson learnt for CS2: The traceability and evolutions on GAM should be

better documented to establish and assess its overall compliance and performance. Traceability should track changes and their impact. This action enhances the ability of the

programme to adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

R-SGO.4 – lesson learnt for CS2: Many interdependencies are seen among ITDs and with

other national and EC activities. The Panel recommends incorporating current interface management practices into a specific interface management function. Moreover, formal

exchange of information should be established among the CS, SESAR and other research

programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020). Implementing this recommendation would speed up research work and avoid potential duplications.


Sec

tio

n


R-SGO.5 – lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends including metrics such as weight savings, energy efficiency, maintenance environmental impacts (e.g. reduction of

hydraulic fluids) and expected efforts to maturation and manufacturing to be taken

individually per technology in order to assess the benefit for Clean Sky and potential

candidates for CS2.

R-SGO.7 – CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel recommends a thorough preparation for the

transition to new developments proposed by Clean Sky. The compatibility of Clean Sky

with end users expectations needs to be addressed.

5.5 Sustainable And Green Engines (SAGE)

R-SAGE.1 – lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel questions the appropriateness of

designing a new CROR engine demonstrator (SAGE2), based on the non-optimal choice of an existing gas generator. It is understood that this is a cost and time limiting solution.

There are doubts whether the final demonstrator is going to be fully representative of a

future CROR engine. Therefore the Panel recommends strengthening the validity of the

design in view of more representative demonstrators. RSAGE.5 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The possible influence on programmes of changes in

the structure of industry (acquisitions, joint ventures, etc.) should be kept under review by

Clean Sky officials, with the aim of identifying opportunities to prevent or to minimise potential adverse effects. RSAGE.6 –Lessons learnt for CS2: In general, the boundaries between activities carried

out within FP7 Level 2 programmes and Clean Sky are not clearly defined or explained.

The Panel recognises that Clean Sky is intended to bring those Level 2 technologies to a higher TRL level but the issues of duplicating work and duplicate funding should be

monitored.


R-TE.1 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel considers that budget allocation and

involvement of ITD leaders should be reinforced within TE. This would help ensuring

ownership on the results of TE assessment and implementation of corresponding

improvement measures.

R-TE.3 - CS1 and CS2: The Panel believes that a more formal involvement of certification

authorities and decision makers is needed. Their direct feedback in the TE evaluation is

needed to take into account the necessary steps to move forward the Clean Sky developments forwards into actual implementation of future aircraft systems.

R-TE.4 – CS1 and CS2 related: The resolution, granularity and assumptions included in

the aircraft models have a potential impact on verification of their representativeness and

accuracy. It is important that aircraft models are as transparent as possible referring to known standards or providing sufficient information.

R-TE.5 – CS1 and CS2 related: It seems that TE consists of three separate projects

(aircraft, airport and global). Tthe Panel considers that work is needed in the creation of

an integrated TE framework and how this framework can be developed and used beyond Clean Sky. This would help evaluating technologies associated to environmental

improvements in a harmonised and systematic manner.


Sec

tio

n


R-TE.8 – CS1 and CS2 related: The airport and global (ATS) level needs to include SESAR and NextGen effects in the ATM system developments.

6. Evolution since 1st Evaluation

6.1 General Issues

R-6.1.2 – Lessons learnt for CS2 : It is noted that the TRL evaluation occurs at a late stage of the Clean Sky plan. By the time the TRL evaluation is performed, design concepts,

technological developments and implementation directions have been committed to a great

cost. The Panel recommends an early evaluation of the TRL potential and its

environmental benefit when a technology is considered for Clean Sky. Lessons learnt from Clean Sky work should also be considered regarding technologies that have been stopped.


R-6.2.1 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to implement contingency plans in terms of budget and demonstration activities.

R-4.5: The Panel notes that in some cases, the inappropriate choice of subcontractors has

led to poor results relative to the project they are related to. The Panel therefore recommends the JU to investigate possible ways of improving the selection process of

subcontractors.

R-6.4.5: Further consideration should be given to the detailed process of estimating the

benefits of the Clean Sky programme in relation to the contributions from other relevant

programmes, and to how the benefits can be shared with stakeholders outside the specialist scientific/technical community.


9 Conclusions

The Panel is convinced that - in spite of initial delays due to the slow start - the JU has marked satisfactory progress towards meeting the objectives set and has shown an open, non-

discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders. In particular, there has been an

effective strategy in managing the calls for proposals, in promoting participation of SMEs and

increasing the rate of new entrants in the JU and the CfPs. The existing links with both SESAR and ACARE should be strengthened and it is important to reach a better view within the JU at large

about the airlines, ANSPs and other stakeholders.

Overall the Panel believes that the Clean Sky governance is efficient in the management of the programme and delivery of calls and projects and considers the present governance structure a

valid model to be continued also in the future. However, efforts for increasing the organisational

efficiency, reducing the administrative burden and enhancing internal and external communication

are still required. The Panel recommends strengthening the resources of the JU alongside with the streamlining of the potential services which could be shared with other JUs.

Communication and dissemination efforts are satisfactory; however it is deemed necessary that the

CS communication strategy allows for more efforts dedicated to communicating the broader socio-economic and environmental impacts not only to the aeronautical stakeholders, but also to the

policy and decision makers at the European and national levels. The NSRG and STAB should be

involved in these initiatives.

Overall, the Panel believes that the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators portfolio is of high

quality. The Panel collected evidence that the JU is perceived as the flagship for Public Private

Partnership supported aeronautic R&D in Europe. Overall the Panel was of the opinion that

alongside considerable strengths and achievements of the CSJU, there were areas that needed some further attention and where opportunities should be taken. There is no doubt about the quality and

the relevance of the technical activities carried out within Clean Sky, but the problems of resource

allocation together with “slipping” schedules may jeopardize this quality is some cases.

Also the technical development of the demonstrators is making satisfactory progress. The Panel

believes that by the end of Clean Sky, the demonstration programmes will allow to provide

evidence of integration of several technologies and to indicate the potential benefits in a relevant operational environment. The status of each of the Clean Sky ITDs is briefly described in the

following paragraphs.

The Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) ITD can be considered as the reference for the Clean Sky

ambitions. It is managing some very critical technologies, potentially contributing to breakthrough performance improvement for aircraft and to a step change in achieving ACARE goals. New tools,

new methodologies, new certification processes have been investigated and developed to allow

progress towards TRL 6. The JU and its governance bodies should review with special attention all the issues encountered during the past years in SFWA and draw all the lessons from this first phase

of Clean Sky in order to avoid any repetition in CS2. ITDs need to be flexible not only technically

but also in terms of budget.

The Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) ITD has a comprehensive task, dealing with the Aircraft

Body (with the exclusion of the engine), All Electrical Aircraft Devices, Mission and Trajectory

Management, and finally with the evaluation of the benefits for the environment as defined by ACARE. The Panel was pleased to see concrete evidence of progress in innovative technology

developments, concrete contribution towards ACARE targets and to note that the environmental

assessment performed at this stage of the GRA development shows similar quantitative results in both GRA ITD and TE.

The key issue is the reduction of weight by using composite materials. The R&D on new structure

design and composite materials is supported by a wide range of laboratory tests; full scale ground


demonstrators are planned to be concluded with a variety of flying tests within 2015. Flying tests

require extensive preparation in terms of a new technology and its suitability for an existing

regional aircraft. An important aspect addressed in an appropriate manner by GRA is the combination of experienced production and R&D personnel involved in detailed planning and

appropriate reviews for preparing demonstration activities.

The two days visit to the Alenia premises was instrumental to convince the Panel that the GRA

ITD will be completed on time, with more than satisfactory results.

The transversal ITD Systems for Green Operation (SGO) develops technologies addressing the Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE) t and Management of Trajectory and Mission (MTM). The

Panel observed concrete examples of technologies, architectures and software tools as well as

preparations towards demonstration activities. In general, flight and ground demonstrations are foreseen for MAE technologies while ground demonstrations are foreseen for MTM technologies.

The documentation, presentations and demonstrations during the technical visits provided good

evidence of the SGO contribution to the ACARE goals in terms of weight, fuel savings and noise reduction.

The Panel appreciates that the SGO technologies take into account results from previous FP

projects and develop them further. SGO mature technologies have been adapted to regional and

large aircraft ITDs. Many technologies are expected to achieve TRL 5 or TRL 6, e.g. the green take-off function and Electrical Environmental Control System. Still, the Panel notes that not all

technologies will achieve TRL 6, e.g. advanced weather algorithms.

The assessment of TRL has been more challenging than expected. Currently, TRL monitoring and

risk management tools have been implemented in a satisfactory manner. Lessons learnt from this

assessment process can be transferred to other domains.

SGO has a lot of interfaces internally within CS and externally, e.g. with SESAR. Deficiencies in

receiving documentation from SESAR have been identified. Specific reviews between SESAR and

CS are carried out and members seem satisfied with the level of interaction achieved. Close involvement of EASA is still an open issue. More coordination with TE and SESAR is advised

regarding models, e.g. noise models and noise assessments to ensure complementarity and

synergies.

The Green Rotor-Craft ITD (GRC) focuses on the integration of technologies and demonstration

of rotorcraft platforms (helicopters and tilt-rotor) to drastically reduce emissions and noise while

maintaining present performance. The Active Gurney Flaps and the Diesel Engine are presented as the two “flagships” of this ITD.

Regarding the achievement of the ACARE goals, as of today, the evaluation carried out within

GRC7 and TE confirms those objectives. In particular, for the single engine light helicopter (SEL), the evaluation shows a reduction of 30% for CO2 and 47% for noise compared to the targets of -

25% CO2 and -50% noise respectively, thanks to the new technologies developed within GRC. The

Panel considers this a very positive achievement. However, the evaluation of NOx reduction is not yet available and the evaluation still has to be complemented by the evaluation of the other

helicopter models in order to obtain an average result for all helicopter categories considered within

CS.

The work plan shows delays in some areas, but no impact is expected on completion of targets as

appropriate mitigation plans have been put in place. It is clear that the ITD is well run at overall

level. Some of the ground tests have been completed already and the ambition of GRC is to include flight tests as well towards the end of the programme to achieve a nominal TRL6 level.

The purpose of the Sustainable and Green Engine ITD (SAGE) is to assess, design, build and test up to five full-scale engine demonstrators distinguished by application (helicopter, regional,

narrow-body and wide-body aircraft) and by engine architecture (2-shaft, 3-shaft, geared, open-


rotor). These demonstration vehicles are using the competencies and facilities of all the European

aero-engine manufacturers complemented with those of related Research establishments, academia

and SMEs.

The main novelties in the SAGE ITD are the start of engine demonstrator tests (SAGE 3 – Large

Turbofan and SAGE 5 – Advanced Turboshaft) and the availability of new hardware including the

composite fan blades (RR) for the large turbofan, composite blades (Snecma) for CROR and the intermediate casing (GKN) for the turbofan. Another important achievement is the noise issue of

the CROR engines, which could be significantly mitigated by appropriate design of blades.

Confidence is now expressed by both SAGE 1 and SAGE 2 leaders that CROR powerplants can

achieve the reductions in external noise levels (in EPNdB) desired in future civil aircraft. The Panel regards all these achievements as encouraging outcomes of the Clean Sky work so far.

However, delays in the work plan are still threathening the programmes although mitigation plans are being adopted. Changes in the industry structure in Europe may also threathen the programmes

and the consequences of the acquisition of Clean Sky Partners by non-European competing firms

should be considered. The high number of CfPs is promoting involvement of a large number of SMEs at European level and widening participation of companies from other industrial sectors.

However, the low success rate of CfPs in some areas remains a source of concern. Finally, further

consideration should be given to the detailed process of estimating the benefits of the Clean Sky

programme in relation to contributions from other relevant programmes, and to how the benefits can be conveyed most clearly and accurately to authorities outside the specialist scientific/technical

community.

The Eco-Design ITD (ED) is focused on a very critical domain for Aerospace. Until now this

domain has been insufficiently taken into consideration by research studies in the different

Framework Programmes, namely to improve the environmental impact of Aircraft design,

manufacturing, maintenance and withdrawal. The ITD is well managed and its contribution is notable. However, the JU should better define the

concept of the ITD and identify the potential contribution from other State of the Art domains to

Aerospace (e.g. railways, automotive, etc.) in order to build a consistent and coherent approach for the domain. Clean Sky 2 offers an opportunity to launch a top-down design phase to address the

domain by taking into account inputs from other areas.

Regarding the Technology Evaluator ITD, the Panel observed real progress in the TE assessment.

TE has a critical role of assessing the environmental impact of the CS technologies by flying the

conceptual aircraft in various operating scenarios. The Panel greatly appreciated to see real figures

of ITDs environmental benefits and the contribution to ACARE targets. However the conceptual aircraft delivered as black boxes is hampering the original role of TE as an independent instrument.

Consequently, future TE developments must shift towards a more open definition and validation of

conceptual aircraft models.

The TE assessment provides an opportunity for ITDs in their decision making to focus on the most

promising technologies. TE has experienced some delays due to information not timely available from the ITDs. The Panel identifies a lack of use of the feedback mechanism that ensures the use of

the TE results within the vehicle ITDs. The Panel recommends a more active use of the TE

assessment results so that the ITDs can define and follow-up the effect of the corrective actions.

Finally, the frequent interactions with TE officials in the course of the preparation of the Panel

Report have allowed to clarify the concept of noise reduction. Up to now noise reduction has been

qualified as a reduction of the noise surface area, while, to compare with the ACARE goals a dB reduction should also be evaluated. This has not been included so far, because the data for this

additional evaluation were not provided for all concerned ITDs. The Panel has been assured that as

of the next yearly TE assessment, all the dB values will be also made available by the ITDs,

enabling TE to perform the expected comparison with the ACARE targets and CSPD objectives.


The 1st Interim Evaluation Report, published in 2010, emphasised the existence of significant

delays, due to a variety of reasons, in one way or another, because the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking was set up as joint venture among the major European aeronautical Industries, each of them with its

own history, traditions and ‘modus operandi’. A major effort was thus required to harmonise these

differences in order to set up an efficient organisation, able to tackle the complexity of the activities required for such an ambitious undertaking. Therefore it should not be surprising at all that the

original targets for 2010 could not be met, in spite of the expert and competent management of the

CSJU. The Panel could only review at the time documents and interview the Leaders of the JU and

of all the ITDs in Brussels and to discuss in detail the difficulties encountered in starting the planned activities in an efficient manner.

For the 2nd

Interim Evaluation, the Panel visited some of the involved Partners at their own premises. These visits enabled the Panel to realise the enormous amount of R&D work performed

by each ITD and the significant results already obtained based on the implementation of clear and

well focussed plans. The Panel was very impressed by these results clearly showing that all the ITDs were on the right track, leaving little doubt that Clean Sky will eventually reach its overall

objectives. Given the research nature of CS, the Panel notes that some technologies have been

abandoned. This fact provides a good example of adaptability to changes, opportunities and

constraints.

There are still some delays (although reduced in most cases since 2010) and some technical issues

to be addressed, which should however not raise any serious concern. Actually it would be preferable to make available the new technologies required with some delays and at some extra

costs, rather than providing, on time and within the original costs, technologies not sufficiently

mature and validated.

A new planning has been implemented and overall good technical progress has been reported now. However, it should be noted that the original ambitions have to be adapted to the programme

timeline and resources available.

The Panel underlines that the CSJU strongly contributes to achieving the roadmaps that have been

jointly agreed between all stakeholders, considers the multi-annual approach as advantageous and

recommends this to be continued in the future.

Following a SWOT analysis, the Panel prepared recommendations for the remaining activities

under Clean Sky and - based on the lessons learnt - formulated recommendations for future public

private partnerships under Horizon 2020 (Clean Sky 2).

Finally, the Panel assesses the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking as a very ambitious European initiative

which can be regarded as the flagship for public-private-partnership supporting aeronautic R&D in Europe with the potential to become an innovative model of public-private-partnerships also for

other domains.


10 Annexes

10.1 Composition of the 1st Interim Evaluation Panel

BERTOLINI, Enzo

ECKARDT, Dietrich

HECKER, Peter (Rapporteur)

HERRERA, Ivonne HORVAT, Manfred

HUGUET, Michel (Chairman)

10.2 Composition of the 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel

BERTOLINI, Enzo

BROUCKAERT, Jean Francois (Rapporteur) DI NUCCI, Maria-Rosaria

HERRERA, Ivonne

QUENTIN, Francois (Chairman)

10.3 Short Bio of the 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel Members

Enzo BERTOLINI (IT) is, since 2006, the Director of the 'Foundation Clément Fillietroz', operating the Astronomic Observatory and the Planetarium of the Aosta Valley (research in astrophysics and science communication for students and general public). He was at CERN (Geneva) from 1959 to 1962 (research in high energy physics), he then moved to the CNEN (now ENEA) at the Frascati Laboratory (research in plasma physics aiming at fusion power) from 1962 to 1969. He then accepted a Visiting Professorship (Regent's professor), at the University of California (Davis campus), teaching in the field of plasma physics applications from 1969 to 1970. He came back to Frascati to take the position of Director of the MHD (Magneto-Hydrodynamics Laboratory) from 1970 to 1973, when he was appointed Deputy Manager at the JET Project (Joint European Torus), Abingdon (UK), to design, build and operate the, still today, largest and most successful fusion energy experiment in the World (in November 1991, JET proved the scientific feasibility of fusion energy, reproducing a 'piece' of Sun on Earth for the first time). He covered various positions in JET, ending up, from 1992 to 1997 as Technical Director, responsible for all the Engineering and the experimental operation of this 1 billion € machine. In 1991 an unprecedented World collaboration was set up (Japan, China, Korea, India, European Union and United States to design ITER (International Tokamak Experimental Reactor), now under construction in the European site of Cadarache (France). Enzo Bertolini was involved in this activity, for several years, thanks to his wide experience acquired with JET. Subsequently he served as Technical and Scientific Advisor of the JET Director (1997-1999), and of the Director of the UKAEA Fusion Programme (1999- 2005), when JET became a user's facility, operated by the UKAEA, for the European Fusion Laboratories. Finally, before the present position, he has been a consultant for the Korean Basic Science Institute (KBSI), for the design and construction of KSTAR (the main Korean fusion facility). He has been, or is still member of various Institutions (EPS, IEEE, etc.) and Projects (such as ATLAS, the main LHC detector at CERN, where, last year, the Higgs particle was experimentally discovered, Project 242 of the Italian Space Agency, aiming at the design of a special nuclear engine, proposed by the Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, for a manned mission to Mars). Enzo Bertolini has been author or co-author of more than 120 publications in Journals and in proceeding of major Conferences in the fields of his research activities. His academic career started as Assistant Professor at the department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Rome (1064-1069) and continued as Visiting Professor at the College of Engineering at the University of California (Davis Campus and Santa Barbara Campus) from 1969 to 1988, when he was appointed Adjunct Professor at Davis.


Jean-Francois BROUCKAERT (BE), is Associate Professor in the Turbomachinery and Propulsion Department at the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics (VKI), Belgium. He graduated as a Mechanical Engineer from the Faculté Polytechnique de Mons in 1994. He then joined the VKI for a postgraduate Research Master in Turbomachinery and obtained his PhD from Université Libre de Bruxelles in 2002. His major fields of activities are axial compressor design and testing as well as high frequency and high temperature instrumentation for gas turbines. Dr. Brouckaert is also Secretary General of EVI-GTI, the European Virtual Institute for Gas Turbine Instrumentation. He is co-chair of several NATO-RTO AVT (Advanced Vehicle Technology) working groups. He has served as an independent expert in several previous evaluations and reviews for European funded projects.

Maria Rosaria DI NUCCI (IT) is a Senior Researcher at the Environmental Policy Research Centre of the Freie Universität Berlin and an independent consultant. She holds a Masters degree in Economics from the University of Rome (1979) and a PhD (1986) from SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) of the University of Sussex. She has been working in environmental and energy policy for over 25 years and was involved in various EU Initiatives and projects. Formerly she was Head of the Climate Protection Group at the Ministry of Urban Development and Environment of the Land Berlin (1989-2001) and a lecturer in Industrial Economics at the Berlin Technical University (1985-89). A further focus of her activities is impact assessment. Dr. Di Nucci is an expert evaluator and reviewer for European RTD funding organisations and the EC. She participated also in the interim evaluation of the Innovative Medicine JU and Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, acting as the common expert.

Ivonne HERRERA (NO) is a Senior Scientist at SINTEF Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Department of Software Engineering Safety and Security. She has degrees in Electrical Engineering, Masters in Aeronautical Maintenance and Production and PhD in Resilience Engineering and Safety Management. She has more than 20 years experience in the industry regarding avionics engineering, maintenance, air traffic management and safety analyses for aviation and oil and gas industries. The EC has invited Dr. Herrera as an independent expert acting as evaluator or reviewer for evaluation research activities. In 2010, She was member of the expert Panel for the 1st Interim Evaluation of Clean Sky Joint Undertaking. Dr. Herrera is currently involved in Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) projects and acts as project manager for SESAR project such as Dynamic Risk Modeling and a long-term innovative research project dealing with resilience potential for Air Traffic Management in case of system degradation. Dr. Herrera has been invited as a reviewer for different journal such as Reliability Engineering and System Safety, International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, Information and Software Technology and Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. She is currently guest editor to the widely read and respected journal Reliability Engineering & System Safety.

Francois QUENTIN (FR) is an engineer, he graduated in 1975 at Paris Telecom Paris-Tech, he is a French Navy Reserve Officer. Since October the 1

st 2010, he is the Chairman of the Board of

Directors of HUAWEI France, he is also a member of the HUAWEI Group Advisory Council. He is member of the Board of Directors of French and foreign companies. He is Senior Advisor of a leading consulting strategy firm in France. He is a member of an Advisory Group to the Prime Minister Office. From 2003 to 2012, he was Chairman of the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) Brussels a European Commission body in charge of the 2020 Aeronautics Strategic Research Agenda ( refer to : acare4europe.org). In 2008, on behalf of the French Minister for Transport, he launched CORAC (Committee for Research in Aeronautics chaired by the French Ministry in charge of Transport). CORAC is in charge of defining the research strategy for Aeronautics in France 2030. He chaired CORAC from 2008 to 2009, he was a member until 2012. From 2000 to 2010, he was member of the board of the French Aerospace Trade Association (GIFAS) and a member of the board of the European Trade Association ( ASD: Aero Space and Defense). Since 2003, he was a member of the Executive Committee, CEO of the Aerospace Division of the THALES group. In 2009, as SVP and as member of the Executive Committee of THALES, he took charge of the Group global Transformation. Since 1992, he was CEO of various THALES subsidiaries, AUXILEC (Aerospace electrical equipment), SEXTANT Avionique, now THALES Avionics (Flight deck avionics, Flight controls etc…).


10.4 Terms of Reference

The most relevant extracts of the “Terms of Reference” document provided to the Panel by the DG

RTD of the European Commission are listed below. Those are provided as guidelines to the Panel

members as a non-exhaustive list of questions to be addressed and assessed. The focus was mainly set on the evaluation of the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of the CSJU, additionally to the

technical progress of the work programme under each ITD.

1. QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED

The objectives of the CS JU are set up in Article 2 of its Regulation.

The objective of this second interim evaluation is to assess the progress and achievements of the

Clean Sky Joint Undertaking using a common framework between the different JUs to provide coherence for the interim evaluations. In line with Article 11(2) of the Regulation, the evaluation

will be undertaken against the following criteria:

Effectiveness: The progress towards meeting the objectives set, including how all parties

in the public-private partnerships live up to their financial and managerial responsibilities and keep an open non-discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders.

Efficiency: The extent to which the JTIs are managed and operate efficiently.

Research Quality: The extent to which the JTIs enable world-class research that helps

propel Europe to a leadership position globally, and how they engage with a wider

constituency to open the research to the broader society.

In applying those criteria, the follow-up of the recommendations of the first interim evaluation

should also be assessed. An indicative list of evaluation questions to be covered is provided in

Annex 1.

Currently, the CS JU is progressing towards the build-up of demonstrators to be ground and/or flight tested. The 2

nd Interim Assessment of Clean Sky will therefore be in the position of providing

a firma evaluation of the progress towards the technical objectives.


ANNEX 1: Criteria and questions for the 2nd Interim Evaluation of the CS JU (non-

exhaustive list)

1 - General

Q1.1 What is the competitive position of the CS Technologies in the short, medium and long

term?

Q1.2 What changes have occurred from a technology development point of view (e.g.

complementary/competitive technology) and in the global economic/financial context of

this sector since the initiation of the CS JU programme and what are their likely effects?

Q1.3 To what extent were the recommendations from the first interim evaluation taken into account/implemented?

2 - Effectiveness: Progress towards meeting the objectives set.

Q2.1 What progress has been achieved towards the objectives set in the Article 2 of the Council

Regulation setting up the JU? In particular:

Q2.1.1 Has the Clean Sky JU adequately supported aeronautics research in Europe towards the

ACARE 2020 goals as stated in the SRA2?

Q2.1.2 Has there been progress towards the definition and development of the Demonstrators as

set out in the 7-year Work Programme?

Q2.1.3 Has the Clean Sky JU ensured complementarity with other activities of the Seventh Framework Programme? Has CS been effective at leveraging R&D investment at national

programme level?

Q2.1.4 To what extent has the Clean Sky JU succeeded in grouping stakeholders around a project

of common European interest?

Q2.1.5 Has the Clean Sky JU contributed/promoted to the participation/involvement of Small and

Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in its membership/partnership?

Q2.1.6

Are the technical areas (ITDs) structured well in order to achieve their objectives

efficiently? Is the communication appropriate to achieving the overall objectives of Clean

Sky? In particular:

within ITDs?

Across ITDs?

Towards the Technology Evaluator?

Q2.1.7 Are the Technology Evaluator strategy and workplan the most effective in order to assess

the environmental impact of Clean Sky?

Q2.1.8 What changes have occurred in the research and socio-economic context of this sector

since the initiation of the programme and what are their likely effects?

Are the objectives and timeline of the JU still in line with these challenges?


3 - Efficiency: The extent to which the JU has been operated efficiently, whether there has been

good communication of objectives and progress, and the ability to address problems as they arose.

Q3.1 Are the overall legal framework and the modalities for implementation of the JU clear, appropriate and effective?

Q3.2 Are the activities of the JU carried out efficiently?

Q3.3 Do the activities of the JU constitute effective methods of achieving the objectives set?

Q3.4 Is the level of supervision/control within the JU capabilities appropriate to effective

monitoring of progress and has it early warning capability?

Q3.5 Are the JU’s objectives adequately specified and clearly understood by external

stakeholders?

Q3.6 Is the JU effective in terms of knowledge dissemination? Are the JU’s activities

sufficiently visible to the public?

Q3.7 How adaptable is the JU to changing research needs and policy priorities and how are

external stakeholders from science, industry and policy involved in identifying these

needs and shaping the priorities?

4 - Research quality: The extent to which the JU supports top-class RTD in the area.

Q4.1 At this stage, what are the indications that the RTD activities supported by the JU are of

high quality?

Q4.2

Is the membership/partnership of Clean Sky representative of top competences and strengths scattered throughout Europe? How is the participation pattern in terms of

stakeholders (academic, industrial, including SMEs, and research organisation sectors),

geographical and gender balance?

Q4.3 Are the topic descriptions in the Call for Proposal texts appropriate to attract the right level of applicants and ensure innovation?

Q4.4 Is the JU perceived as flagship for Public-Private partnership-supported RTD in the world

and what more could be done in this respect?


10.5 Interviews and sources of information

The Evaluation Report is based on extensive documentation provided by the EC DG RTD and the CSJU. The Panel acknowledges that responses were timely and well prepared. Information was also received through interviews carried out between March and September with the persons listed below. All ITD leaders have participated in the interviews and presentations. The technical visits provided concrete evidence of work e.g. software and hardware presentations. During these visits additional personnel directly involved in the developments discussed were present.

10.5.1 JU Executive Team participants to interviews

DAUTRIAT, Eric Executive Director

PAGNANO, Giuseppe Coordinating Project Officer (PO)

SELMIN, Vittorio PO SAGE-ITD

DEN BOER, Ruud PO SGO-ITD

DITTMANN, Bettina Internal Audit and Quality Officer

DUBOIS, Sébastien PO GRC-ITD

GAVIN, Elisabeth Head of Administration and Finance

FAU, Fernanda Communication Officer

LE HUNCHEC, Yan Project Controller

VAN MANEN, Ron PO TE

POFSADOWSKI, Andrzej PO GRA-ITD

SCHWARZE, Helmut PO SFWA-ITD

TRINCHIERI, Paolo PO ED-ITD

10.5.2 ITD participants to interviews

PINTO, Rocco Alenia Aermacchi

POUSSIN, Giles Thales

ZIEHM, Sebastian Liebherr

KOENIG, Jens Airbus

HELSTROM, Thomas SAAB

OLLIVIER Yvon Dassault Aviation

PACEY, Mark Rolls-Royce plc

10.5.3 Interaction with the NSRG and STAB

LAWLER Jim Chair of the NSRG

EWINS David Chair of the STAB

EURY Serge Member of the STAB

GRASSO Francesco Member of the STAB

SANNA RANDACCIO Francesca Member of the STAB


10.5.4 Reference documents used in the 2nd Interim Evaluation

1st Interim Evaluation- Panel Report of 13 December 2010

Clean Sky setting up

o Council Regulation 71/2008

o Ex-Ante Evaluation of Clean Sky – Impact Assessment 13 June 2007

o Report on JTI structure and Rules for Participation – 23 June 2006

o 2008 Technical evaluation of Clean Sky

Cover note to Evaluation Summary Reports

Transversal Comments across ITDs

Summary reports for ED, GRA, GRC, SFWA, SAGE, SGO, TE

Clean Sky Bodies

o Governing Board

2010-2013 Minutes of Meeting and adopted documents

2010-2013 Minutes of Meetings and related documents

o National States Representative Group

NSRG Rules of Procedure

NSRG Fact Sheet


o Scientific and Technical Advisory Board

STAB Terms of Reference

STAB composition – Press release


Clean Sky 2 Consultation. Initial View of the Member States and

Associate States

Clean Sky JU Internal Documents

o Clean Sky Policy for SMEs (Sept. 2010)

o Financial Rules of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking

o Provisional accounts and budgetary implementation report of the CSJU for

the year 2011

o Provisional accounts and budgetary implementation report of the CSJU for

the year 2012

o Clean Sky JU Multi-annual Staff Policy Plan 2013-2015

o Strategic Audit Plan 2010 – 2012

o Strategic Audit Plan 2011 – 2013 of the IAO

o Quality Manual Ed. 9

o CS Management Manual

CSJU Management Manual V1

CSJU Management Manual Annexes

CSJU Management Manual V3 of 25.5.2013

o Draft Annual Activity Report 2012

o CSJU Communication & Dissemination Strategy. December 2012 Update

o Communication Action Plan 2013

o Financing Agreements EC-C

General Financing Agreement

2009+2010 Annual Financing Agreements

o Model Grant Agreements


GAM version 18-03-2010 + Annexes

GAM SGO Year 2013-2014 + Annexes

GAP version 18-03-2010 + Annexes

Technical Activities

o Research Programme

Technical Proposal March 2007

2008 Work Programmes per ITD

Annexes Ia for ED, GRA, GRC, SAGE, SFWA, SGO and

TE

2009 Update of Work Programme per ITD (where applicable)

2009 Annex Ia update for ED, GRA, GRC, SAGE and TE

2009 Annex Ib update for ED and SAGE

o Members

Annual Implementation Plans

Adopted AIP 2008-2010

ITD Annual Technical Activity Reports

2008 + 2009 Technical activity reports for ED, GRA, GRC,

SAGE, SFWA, SGO and TE

2012 Activity report GRA, SGO

Annual review of 2009 activities per ITD –2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Reviews of ED, GRA, GRC, SAGE, SFWA, SGO and TE

o Partners

Clean Sky Rules for Participants – Guide for Applicants

Call text and outcome (2009-2012)

Additional documents provided after the Kick-Off-Meeting

o Presentation KOM Terms of Reference

o Presentation KOM Panel Meeting 1

o Presentation Clean Sky coordination with national programmes (NSRG)

o ITDs technical presentations and answer to Panel questions April 10

o ITDs technical presentations and answers to Panel questions during

technical visits

o List of actions from 1st Interim Assessment and status

Consultation documents and reports to Clean Sky 2

o CLEAN SKY 2 Impact Assessment. Final Report of the Expert Group

of 29 September 2012

SFWA : Documents, meetings and site visits:

A complete set of documents was provided by the JU covering all the previous stage of the

project.

On April the 10th

, a meeting was organized to present to the Panel the ITD and its status.

The presentation was made by Jens Koenig (AIRBUS) and Thomas Ellstroem (SAAB), Helmut

Schwartze (CSJU) was present.

A visit in Toulouse was organized on May the 23rd

and many in-depths discussions with all the

relevant leaders. Jens Koenig was leading the Airbus team. The CSJU attended to the visit. One

day visits focused on briefing and visits.


An SFWA ITD update briefing and discussion with Jens Koenig project leader and Axel

Krein director Research at Airbus and discussion with the Panel

A presentation of the Ground based Demonstrators by Norman Wood with a visit of

the display on site.

A presentation of the BLADE demonstrators flight test by Thierry Fol.

A discussion with Axel Krein, Research VP Airbus.

A visit of the A340-300 flying test bed selected to test BLADE.

A visit of the Digital Mock Up by Sylvain Pradayrol.

Visit of A340-300, flying test Aircraft selected for the mission, led by Sylvain Pradayrol

(Airbus Flight Tests): two 8 meters long wing sections will be removed and replaced by

the new laminar flow “smart wing” sections of two different types (one on each side of the

aircraft). These sections are identical externally but are different in terms of structure and

technologies.

The site visits were focused exclusively on the BLADE projects, the demonstrators are

outstanding and the associated briefing was explicit about the positive expected results

(Airbus confidential data). The complexity of the BLADE project was very clearly

explained: aircraft modifications were explained. Flight test constraints are understood and

managed. Manufacturing processes were explained and demonstrated (Film).

GRA: Meetings

- April 10, 2013: meeting at the JU, Brussels, Belgium.

- July 4th – 5

th Naples visit to Alenia

- Presentations and other relevant information

- GRA ITD Presentation II Interim Assessment Panel. Brussels, Wednesday, 10

April 2013. The ITD presentation included videos of technological developments.

- Additional answers were provided during September 2013.

Presentations - files Naples technical visit, including some presenters:

Agenda for 4-5 July visit 020713 Update

01-Opportunities for Regional aircraft, P. Cerreta / G. Lannuzzo. Figure on page 6 used in the

CS1 2nd

Iterim Evalaution Report

01-Introduction to AEA (history, objectives...)

02 – GRA One Piece Barrel (OPB) Evaluation

02 - Status of GRA AEA Figure from page 2 used in the CS1 2nd


03 - EPDGS presentation. F. Cuomo. figure from page 5 used in the report

03 – GRA OaA Infusion Technologies – Outer Wing ground demonstrator

04 – E-ECS for Regional Aircraft presentation, Alessandro Della Rocca

04 – Metal welding – Nano material, Fernando Bianchetti

05 - Status of activities GRA Low Weight Configuration domain. V. Ascione / V. D’Errico.

05- H-WIPS for regional aircraft, Giusy Nugnes

06 – EMA FCS presentation – Flight Control System – Electro-Mechanical Actuation for FCS

application

06- JTI Flying Panel evaluation. V. D’Ambrosio / V. D’Errico. Figure on page 12 used in the

CS1 2nd


07 – EMA MLG presentation

07 – Status of activities GRA MTM S. Mastorana


08 - Assessment of AEA & LWC technologies at aircraft level, Giovanni Cerino & Rossella

Valiante (Alenia Aermacchi Preliminary Design department) Figures from pages 13 and 14

used in the CS1 2nd


Status of activities (GRA LNC)

GRC : Documents, meetings and site visits:

Documents :

- General CS information provided on USB key at Kick-Off Meeting

- Annual Review Reports

- Meeting Presentations

Meetings


SGO: Documents, meetings and site visits:

Documents :




Meetings


- May 23, 2013: meeting at AIRBUS, Toulouse, France.

- May 24, 2013: meeting at THALES and LIEBHERR, Toulouse, France

Presentations and other relevant information

- Clean Sky "Systems for Green Operation - Integrated Technology Demonstrator" Gilles Poussin (Thales) / Sebastian Ziehm (Liebherr); Ruud den Boer (CleanSky

JU); 10th Apr Brussels

- Clean Sky “Systems for Green Operation” Integrated Technology Demonstrator”

Gilles Poussin (Thales) / Kader Benmachou (Liebherr), Sebastien Vial (Airbus)

23rd -24

th May 2013, Toulouse

- Clean Sky “Systems for Green Operation ” Integrated Technology Demonstrator”

(SGO-ITD): Toulouse, 24th May 2013 Gilles Poussin (Thales) / Kader

Benmachou (Liebherr) (MTM Functions) 24th May 2013, Toulouse

- SGO ITD LIEBHERR AEROSPACE TOULOUSE SGO Consortium, 24th May

2013, Toulouse

- ITD Systems for Green Operations Grant Agreement Annex 1A 2013-2014

SGO-WP 0-TAV-MNGT-0320-A08, Annex 1B Year 2013-2014

SGO-WP 0-TAV-MNGT-0321-A10

SAGE: Documents, meetings and site visits:

Documents :




Meetings



- June 18, 2013: meeting at Rolls-Royce, Derby, UK.

- June 25-28, 2013: SAGE annual review meeting at Scandic Swania Hotel hosted

by GKN Aerospace (Volvo), Trollhattan, Sweden (SAGE 7th Annual Review

Meeting).

Eco-Design ITD presentations and additional material:

Presentation April the 10th by Yvon Ollivier (Dassault Aviation) and Paolo Trinchieri (CSJU).

The presentation made was sent to the Panel members.

A memorandum proposing the ITD’s answers to the Panel was sent on 21/05/13 under the

following identification: ED-WP_0MEM0441. A second version of the same document (same number) was sent on the 29/08/13.

TE: Documents, meetings and site visits:

Documents :




Meetings


- May 24, 2013: meeting at THALES and LIEBHERR, Toulouse, France

- Telephone conferences August and September with TE representatives

Presentations and other relevant information

- Clean Sky TE 2nd

CS interim review CSJU April 10, 2013

- CLEAN SKY 1st INTERIM EVALUATION (15 dec 2010) PANEL REPORT.

This document indicates how TE addressed recommendations from 1st Interim

Evaluation

- Second CS Interim Review Technology Evaluator presentation

Thales Avionics - May 24th, 2013, Toulouse, France

- CLEAN SKY DEVELOPMENT PLAN V 2.02 DRAFT


10.6 Procedure comparison among three JUs: Fuel Cell & Hydrogen (FCH), Innovative Medicines (IMI) and Clean Sky

ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

JUs Organisation

Legal Form Legally established in May 2008 as community body involving a PPP based on the principles of the EU Financial Regulations. Full autonomy in November 2010.

Legally established in December 2007 as community body involving a PPP under the EU Financial Regulations. Full autonomy in November 2009.

Legally established in December 2007 as a community body involving a PPP under the EU Financial Regulations. Full autonomy in November 2009.

Veto Right EC YES

(by failing consensus a majority of 9/12 is required and EC has an indivisible vote of 5/12)

de jure NO, de facto YES

(decisions taken by a three-quarters majority and requiring the positive vote by

the Founding Members)

YES

Founding members EU and ‘Industry Grouping’. The Research Grouping became a member late in 2008.

EU and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)

EU and Industry consisting of 12 ITD leaders, 72 Associates (and 450 Partners).

STAFFING Authorised ceiling of 20 staff of which 18 posts assigned as of June 2013.

5 Project Managers responsible for approx. 150 projects and overloaded with a wide range of administrative functions and other functions dealing (directly or indirectly) with operational activities (financial, legal, audit and communication officers)

Additional efficiencies resulting from internal reallocation of resources and sharing of horizontal services with other JUs are already exploited.

Authorised maximum ceiling of 36 staff members reached in July 2012.

9 scientific managers for scientific activities +3 communications/external relations. In total 30 + 6 admin. assistants.

80% of staff resources are assigned to directly work or support operational activities.

Authorised ceiling of 24

8 Project officers; 75% of staff dealing with operational activity (technical and financial); 6 staff on horizontal support, e.g. Executive Director, Head of Admin, secretary, Internal Auditor; etc.

Nr of calls for Proposals

6 in total, one yearly

11 in total (9- 11 to be launched in second half of 2013)

14 in total (one planned in July 2013)

Nr of projects estimated total of 150 for 2008-2013 40 signed (estimated 60 in total) 342 GAP (Grant Agreement for Partners) + 7 GAM (Grant Agreement for Members) = 349 projects signed (further 63 under negotiation and further 30 to be published) – Estimated final total -= 442 projects


ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

Nr of projects per PO

Approx. 25-30 projects/PO The Head of Programme does also manage 13 projects.

Each on-going project managed by a scientific & a finance officer. Projects’ portfolio distributed among 9 scientific and 4 finance officers (7 projects per scientific officer on average).

1 GAM and 60 GAPs per PO on average

BUDGET Funding for RTD 2008-2013: 940 M€ (including max 40 M € for running costs)

Contribution on a 50/50 basis by the EC in cash and IG/RG( in-kind for operations and cash for running costs)

2 billion € (1 billion from EC in cash/ EFPIA companies contribute €1 billion in kind), including maximum €40 million contribution per Founding Member. Funding is distributed through open and competitive CfP following a peer reviewed two-stage process.

2008-2013: 780.26 M €. Contribution on a 50/50 basis by the EC (in cash) and the aeronautical industry (in-kind). ITD Leaders commit up to 400m €, Associates members up to 200 m € and Partners receive (through Call for Proposals) a minimum of 200m €.

AUDIT Internal Audit Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS)

Internal Audit Capability within the JU

External Audit European Court of Auditors

COORDINATION amongst JUs

Shared services & facilities

Logistics (building); Common IT infrastructure

Shared approach on continuation of JU in H2020 legal basis and financial rules

Regular coordination between Internal Audit Functions of the 3 JUs in place for issues of horizontal nature (e.g. audit methodology, approach towards the Court of Auditors). Audit services are also shared between JUs when it is the most cost-efficient solution (e.g. common framework contract on Ex-Post audits, joint engagements…)

Synergies/ commonalities

Informal general coordination at executive directors’ level (quarterly) and Heads of Administration and Finance IT Governance Committee (quarterly meetings) Common framework contracts (e.g. ex-post audits, interim staffing, IT support)

Coordination on case-by-case basis for communication / HR / legal matters /IT/ audits...

Planned common activities

2nd October 2013: JTIs joint conference and exhibit at European Parliament

Potential services to be shared

IT No objection within JU. There is already a shared IT service (outsourced to an external firm). IT officer of the JU chairs the IT Governance Committee & ensures coordination between JUs on common IT issues.

No objection within JU. Joint management of common infrastructure and services already in place.

No objection within JU Joint management of common infrastructure and services already in place.


ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

Internal audit The JU has an Internal Audit Manager covering assurance (i.e. audits) and consulting services on risk management, governance aspects, reporting and ex-post audit .This internal solution with a multi-task approach is considered by FCH JU the most efficient solution to address the necessary ‘assurance’ and ‘advisory’ needs of the JU.

The JU has an Internal Audit Manager providing internal assurance and consulting services on governance, internal control, ex-post and risk management processes. This current arrangement, embedded within the JU’s internal governance and internal control system is considered by the JU as essential and necessary as to ensure timely and efficient response to the ‘assurance’ and ‘advisory’ needs of the JU.

JU has Internal Audit Officer focusing on advisory services, risk assessment, ex-post audit process. “Internal” advisory function, partially management role. This internal solution is considered by CS as more effective. CS claims that the quality function within the JU is essential. Even if the internal audit could be shared, this internal knowledge and advisory role should be kept.

Other administrative services

JU claims that a combination of “multi-task” of staff in a JU (HR & general affairs; legal & procurement; accounting & finance…) with coordination & cooperation on a case by case basis with other JUs is more efficient as it has the advantage of knowledge of the JU transactions, flexibility and business continuity

Enhanced cooperation and synergies in areas of support services (e.g. IT, HR, Finance) are desirable but remains to be further investigated based on impact analysis of centralisation of common support services by DG RTD for the Research family under Horizon 2020, workload and budget (including staffing level) for IMI2.

Some staff are performing ‘multi-task’ functions, e.g. the Assistant to the Director is the only person dealing with all HR matters for the JU; the Legal officer is combining the role of legal officer with procurement officer and Data Protection Officer and is also in charge with European Parliament relations; The internal audit function and quality management role are performed by the same person.

GOVERNANCE Governing bodies Same structure based on Governing Board and advisory bodies (SC, SRG/STAB, Stakeholder Assembly/Stakeholder Forum/General Forum)

Governing Board The GB consists of the EC (5 members), the Industry Grouping (6 Members) and 1 member of the Research Grouping.

The GB consists of the EC (5 members) and EFPIA (5 Members)

The GB consists of the EC, 12 ITD leaders and 6 Associates (rotating representatives for associates)

Scope and functions of

the SRG

SRG acts as advisory group and should interface with the relevant stakeholders in their respective countries.

Around 10 members attend regularly. The Group meets at least bi-annually

The chair attends as observer the GB meetings.

SRG acts as advisory group and as an interface with the relevant stakeholders in their respective countries. It is supposed to have an important role in liaising with the national programmes and helping in dissemination and outreach activities. SRG members shall act as IMI ambassadors/ multipliers.

SRG acts as advisory group and as an interface with the relevant stakeholders in their respective countries. 14 members attend regularly. Some members are at the same time NCPs or/and members of the programme-me committee. The CS ED and the GB Chair attend the NSRG meetings and the Chair of the NSRG attends as an observer at the CS GB.


ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

Up to now there have been limited joint activities. There appear to be a strong interest in reviewing AIP and MAIP and in advising on the strategic orientation of the programme.

The SRG has been invited to propose experts and to contribute to the workshops related to the calls consultations prior to launch.

SRG consulted on annual scientific priorities set out in AIPs.

SRG proposes candidatures for the SC to be approved by the GB.

During 2012, the NSRG met four times and was represented at the GB meetings.

Members take a supportive role particularly in relating with the European Council and take part in information dissemination and Info days. They analyse the results of the calls.

Scope and functions of the Scientific Committee SC/STAB

The SC (9 members from academia, industry and regulatory bodies) provides scientific advice on the R&D agenda (MAIP & AIP) and participates in the monitoring of the FCH JU programme by acting as experts in the annual Programme Review Days

The SC (15 members, including the EU regulatory agency EMA as observer) provides scientific advice to the Governing Board

The STAB (established in 2010) is involved in monitoring the progress of the 7 ITDs that comprise the technical content of the programme, largely through participation as Reviewers at the Annual Reviews and in the mid-year progress reviews and other reviews throughout the year. Each Board member is associated with the reviews of at least 2 ITDs and also serves to check the quality of the reports delivered by these ITDs. The STAB oversees all the reviews and produces (since 2012, at the ED’s request) a synthesis of the annual reviews outcomes.

Role and authority of Exec. Director

Chief executive responsible for the management and implementation of the JU programme in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Board. No system of delegation from the GB to the Exec. Director in place.

Chief executive responsible for the management and implementation of the JU programme in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Board.

Few discretionary decisions. A system of delegation from the GB to the Exec. Director for routine operations is envisioned.

Chief executive responsible for the management and implementation of the JU in accordance with the decisions of the GB. CS is a programme, with a common set of objectives, cross-links between platforms, interfaces, priorities and management. The exec Director is in charge with it. The director has delegation for contracts signatures up to a predefined level.

SMEs

Support/ Involvement of SMEs/

No dedicated PO focusing on SMEs. All POs do their best to involve as many SMEs in the projects.

A Scientific officer has been tasked with focusing on SMEs and developed links with many SMEs associations. IMI Executive

No dedicated officer focusing on SMEs

CfP participants: 38% SMEs winning in CfPs


ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

CfP statistics One seat in the JU-GB is reserved for SMEs (in practice, there are 2 SMEs seating in the GB)

SME participation > than in FP (in 2008-2012 : 25% of the funding compared to 18% in FP7)

>50% of the more than 60 members of the IG are SMEs

Office supports SMEs through info on IPR, a web based tool kit, advice on negotiating grants & project agreements, rules on financial reporting. SME are selected based on the needs of EFPIA consortium coordinators. In total, there are 141 SMEs participating in IMI projects (15.9% of total participants). 21.4% of IMI Calls funding is allocated to SMEs (Calls 1-8). Perceived benefits for SMEs: to work with large companies, who are potential clients. There has been a steady increase in SME participation in IMI consortia and in EoI.

SMEs´ share of funding earmarked for CfP (25% of EC contribution) amounts to 35%

Financial restrictions/

red tape

As the FCH is not part of the guarantee fund it carries out a Financial Viability Check (eligibility for grant pre-financing) which may lead to requiring a guarantee or limiting the amount of pre-financing and this may appear difficult for some SMEs. Possibility to organise a workshop on the topic between FCH JU PO/ EC and SMEs who have been facing these issues.

No need for financial guarantee for SMEs, but a financial viability check is performed. The current IP-policy of the IMI is alleged to discourage the participation of SMEs.

No need for financial guarantee for SMEs, but a financial viability check is performed.

SMEs can be mono-beneficiaries which contributes to the high percentage participation in CFPs

Participation in JU CfP procedures and regulations

FUNDING rate

The funding rules are very close to the FP7 ones .The upper funding rates for direct costs are basically the FP7 ones, with the additional requirement of matching between EU funds and in-kind contribution from participants. This might lead to decreased funding rates with a ‘correction factor’ to be applied across the whole call. Funding rates may differ for each Call depending on ‘correction factor’ applied.

Eligibility for funding limited to academia, research institutes, patient organisations, regulators, SMEs

75% RTD contribution to SMEs/academia and other IMI beneficiaries; 20% flat overhead rate or actual indirect costs

For other activities , management and training, the IMI JU financial contribution may reach a maximum of 100% of the total eligible costs

The single entity applying is eligible for either 50% or 75% depending on the legal status (for example industry or SME); in case of a consortium, both funding criteria will apply and the resulting funding will be an average of the two percentages, weighted by the actual contributions of each partner.

The existing members are only eligible for 50% funding if they are winners of CFPs


ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

This assessment is done after the evaluation of each call and before starting negotiations.

Indirect costs (overhead) can be declared based either on ‘actual’ or on a ‘flat rate’ model (EC validation system), but are reimbursed at a maximum fixed rate of 20% of the direct costs.

EFPIA companies contribute with in-kind or cash contribution and are not reimbursed.

Budget distribution:

Up to : 400 M €: leaders

Up to 200M € : associates

At least 200 M€ CfP

Average funding rate in Calls: 65.6%

Applicants success rate: 35%

Rules for participation/

Requirements for consortia

Similar as in FP7 (3 legal entities from at least 3 MS or associated countries etc.) with one addition: at least one member of the consortium must be member either of the IG or of the RG.

Two-stage process. In Stage 1 applicants (at least 2 legal entities eligible for IMI funding) submit EoI for joining a consortium of EFPIA member companies. In Stage 2 the successful applicants and EFPIA consortium (at least 2 EFPIA companies) are invited to submit a full proposal. With the 4th revision of the IMI model Grant Agreement, IMI projects have been provided with additional flexibility:

- to launch competitive calls for the addition of new beneficiaries to on-going projects

- for setting up synergies with other on-going IMI collaborative research projects.

Most of RDD&TD are performed by the Members of CS whose activities are covered by Grant Agreements for Members (GAM). There is one amendment to the GAM per year and per ITD which specifies work plan, resources and budget. Subcontractors are selected by Members through Calls for Tender. Part of the CS programme using 25% of the EC contribution is performed by Partners selected through CfP. Successful CfPs lead to the signature of Grant Agreement for Partners (GAP). Average GAP duration is 20 months. There are also mono-beneficiaries. CS does not require a consortium as a constraint; even a single entity can apply.

Financial regulations

In kind contributions (‘matching rule’)

Procedure in use (based on GB approved methodology) to verify that the in-kind contributions provided by the JU participants´ match the cash contribution from the EU. The ‘correction factor’ is the main tool ‘to steer’ the matching between EU funds and in-kind contribution from

In Kind contribution

Procedure in use to verify that Members’ in-kind contributions to IMI match the cash contribution from the EC. EFPIA in kind contribution is monitored through different levels, Call, Grant agreements, ex-ante and ex-post audits.

A limited amount of in kind contribution from outside the EU and associated countries can now account for industry

In Kind contribution

There is a procedure in use to verify that Members’ in-kind contributions to CS match the cash contribution from the EC. The verification is carried out at 3 levels, by audits inside the Members’ organisations when preparing their Form C (annual cost claim), by a CS ex-ante check before payment on the basis of the documents provided (which includes a document of


ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

the participants, in order to comply with the requirement of the Regulation by the end of the Programme.

The verification of the in-kind contri-butions reported by the participants in the cost claims (CCs) is done at three levels: (1) ex-ante review of 100% of CCs by the JU, (2) audit certificates carried out by beneficiaries’ auditors for CCs above pre-defined thresholds and (3) Ex-Post audits by the JU on a sample basis. Assessment and reporting. In addition, FCH JU Council Regulation (art 12.7) requests an independent auditor to assess the in-kind contri-butions on an annual basis and report the results by April of N+1. Since the autonomy of the JU, two annual assessments have been carried out.

matching contribution. This relates to up to 10% of the global contribution for standard projects within a global cap of 5% of the total industry contribution.

For projects of special interest to the EU and society, such as antimicrobial resistance, there is no maximum limit by project but a maximum limit of 30% of the total in kind contribution.

audit procedures to be carried out above 200k threshold per claim) and by an ex-post audit of Members’ expenses against the specified GAM activities.

CS Financial Regulations only allow for either 20% flat rate without justification or real overheads, there is nothing in between.

Time to grant Time to pay

Target in H2020

< 180 days from evaluation

< 90 days

Present

Between 341 and 411 days

365 days in 2011

< 90 days

Target in H2020


< 90 days

Present Evaluation process was streamlined. Time to grant (reduction from 400 days in call 3 to 185 days in call 6).

Target in H2020


Present Latest calls: < 240 days from call publication to GAP 360 days on average for grant signed in 2012

BUDGET

Flexibility

”N+3” rule gives the possibility to re-enter in the budget cancelled appropriations from previous years and this is effectively used

Certain flexibility available. Possibility to shift budget according to the ” 3-years rule”

Certain flexibility available. Possibility to shift budget according to the ” 3-years rule. Transfer from SAGE ITD to GRA ITD. Internal changes in all ITDs as % share. A ITD (SGO) made available 2.5 M€ to JU which was redistributed to other ITDs; budget flexibility works for CS projects in a timely way.


ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

Coordination with National Programmes & Collaborative Research

Cooperation with national programmes (NOW in Germany and Danish FCH programme); involvement in UK H2 Mobility, possibly in future French H2 Mobility

Enhanced cooperation with SRG, which is consulted on annual scientific priorities and proposal Cfp text prior to launch

Interactions with JPI through CfP pre-launch consultation.

Cooperation with NSRG, providing visibility on the CS programme and especially CFPs.

Limited or partial interaction about synergies with national programmes.

KPIs/ Metrics KPIs on: (1) operational aspects linked to Calls/ projects; (2) control aspects encompassing the grant management cycle (e.g. % of complaints on the evaluation process, financial impact of the negotiation process, % of payments made on time, Ex-Post audits: coverage and error rates). The JU reports annually the resulting KPIs in the Annual Activity Report)

Concerning project and technology metrics, the on-going project TEM0NAS should provide a TEchnology MONitoring and ASsessment tool combining S-O-A methodology and IT-implementation. The tool is tailored for the needs of programme progress evaluation and should enable a targeted comparison and evaluation of project results and achievements in an objective way. The tool has still to be provided to the JU (project finished in May 2013) and has to be filled in with project results data, plus literature data for benchmarking. It is expected to start providing reports in 2014.

KPIs were initially developed in 2011 and reported to the Governing Board from 2012. In 2013, a dedicated IT tool has been developed to facilitate tracking of project data and the generation of "classical" metrics. This tool is operational and allows reporting a series of metrics from June 2013. In the future, data generated by the IT-tool will be used to generate a Balanced Scorecard that should facilitate the governance of the partnership.

Regular release of bibliometric data. Agreement with Thompson Reuters to devise metrics for the analysis of scientific publications. Metrics are derived from scientific reports and interim reviews.

Internal Quality management encompassing internal control standards, KPIs and a system of various TRL. For ITDs indicators include: - Budget vs. planned, - Deliverables/TRL gates/ other milestones/ on time vs. delayed - Risk status per technology/sub system - TRL passed during the quarter - % of review recommendation fulfilled at next Annual Review KPIs related to CfP process include: - topic failure rate, time to contract, SME rate KPIs related to GAPs include: - topic success, eligible proposals, contracts signed on time, delay of final reports

- Actual resources consumption of ITDs - SME participation and funding Specific case of TE, providing monitoring and assessment of the improvement in environmental impact of aviation (CO2; NOx; noise) due to the maturity of the technologies being developed and demonstrated in CS. This in terms of sectors (by conceptual aircraft types integrating the suitable technologies) at mission, airport and ATS levels.


ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

IPR The IPR rules are identical to FP7 (foreground and background). The IPR details are agreed between beneficiaries in the mandatory Consortium Agreement.

They have to accommodate the interests of a wide range of stakeholders from large companies to SMEs and researchers in different application areas.

Although based on FP7, IPR rules have been adapted to the objectives of IMI and provide flexibility to IMI consortia to reach the most appropriate agreements (e.g. definition of background; scope of research use of results, access rights to third parties after project’s end, etc.) .

Agreement on IP management shall be reached upfront before the start date of each concerned IMI project.

IPR rules are sometimes perceived to act as a barrier for SME participation

IPR rules – same as in FP7 are implemented in both GAMs and GAPs The Foreground, (results generated by the project), is the property of the beneficiary carrying out the work generating that Foreground. Indeed, beneficiaries are not subcontractors of the CS-JU, so IPRs are not the property of the Topic manager or of the CS-JU. Where several beneficiaries have jointly carried out work generating foreground and where their respective share of the work cannot be ascertained, they shall have joint ownership of such foreground.

Transfer of ownership can be defined.

A plan for the use and dissemination of foreground needs to be prepared, including patent applications and use of the results.

Quality control

Technical/ scientific reviews

Projects are monitored by the POs (after each reporting period) and (with assistance from external experts) during mid-term review meetings and final meetings when needed Feed-back is provided to beneficiaries for better steering the project in the next period.

In parallel an assessment of the programme is performed annually via the Programme Review Days.

Scientific officers and external experts, including members from the Scientific Committee.

Review performed by JU with external experts and STAB.

Technology evaluator providing monitoring and assessment of the improvement in environmental impact (CO2; NOx; noise)

Ex post audit

Error rate threshold allowed by the European Court of Auditors: 2%

Ex-Post audits of beneficiaries are regularly launched in line with the Audit Strategy adopted by the Governing Board.

To date, 48 audits have been launched of which 20 are concluded.

Ex-post audits of beneficiaries are regularly launched in accordance with the Ex-Post Audit Strategy adopted by the Governing Board. To date, 90 audits of beneficiaries have been launched of which 56 have been concluded, indicating to date an error rate

In 2011 and 2012 ex-post audits of financial statements of CSJU beneficiaries have been implemented in line with the Ex-post Audit Strategy adopted by the Governing Board. To date, 65 audits have been launched, out of which 52 have been


ACTIVITIES

FCH IMI CS

97.6% of the errors in favour of the FCH JU detected in the concluded audits have been corrected by the JU. This leads to a residual error rate (i.e. error rate after corrections) of 1.67%, below the Court’s threshold (i.e. 2%).

In addition to the corrective measures above, two main preventive measures have been established by the JU to reduce the probability of errors occurring and/or being undetected, i.e. (1) communication campaigns to provide guidance to beneficiaries and (2) reinforcement of JU’s ex-ante controls.

above threshold of 2%. Recovery and corrective actions are now being taken (where possible with offsetting against next payments). In addition, as preventive measures IMI has continue to reinforce its ex-ante controls and has provided training and guidance to beneficiaries, which has appeared very important to reduce errors especially with the many participants that are SMEs or unfamiliar with FP7 rules.

finalised. Audit results have been implemented (i.e. overpayments were recovered) with more than 96%. The residual error rate, reflecting the remaining errors in favour of the JU - after corrective measures have been taken place- passed from 4.22% in 2011 to 1.29% in 2012, resulting in an accumulated rate of 2.77.

In order to reduce the error rates, the JU has put efforts in improving its ex-ante validation process and has provided extensive guidance to its beneficiaries concerning the eligibility of costs for the CS projects.

Continuation in

H 2020

Proposed by the Commission Proposed by the Commission Proposed by the Commission